Santorum: The Founders Didn't Intend "The Pursuit of Happiness" to Be About "Stuff" or "Pleasure;" The Definition of Happiness Back Then Was "To Do the Morally Right Thing" and The "Freedom To Pursue [God's] Will"

Once again, Santorum does not merely not have a libertarian streak, but speaks about liberty in a hostile and disparaging manner.

Apparently the Pursuit of Happiness just means that I'm free to live my life according to religious doctrine.

I'm glad that in an election primarily about Obama's failure to create a good environment for wealth-creation -- the creation of "stuff," and, in terms of disposable income and time off, "pleasure" -- we're going to be talking about how "stuff" and "pleasure" aren't that important.

The important thing is that we're on the clock 24/7, working for God.

So in that sense, we're all employed. Even if we don't necessarily wish to be.

Incidentally, I wouldn't claim that "stuff" was the sum and entirety of human existence. Even for a humanist/secularist, like myself, materialism is not the Answer to the Great Questions of Life.

However, let me posit the strange notion that perhaps a limited government, interested in maximizing citizen freedom by simultaneously limiting its ambit to only those functions it absolutely must perform, ought not to be in the business of insuring that each citizen make the right decision.

Freedom isn't just the freedom to make the right decision. Freedom is also the freedom to make the wrong decision. A government that only gives you the freedom to make the right decision isn't given you much freedom at all, and is assuming a paternalistic, daddy-says-so relationship to its citizens.

My problem... continues to be that every successful Republican candidate speaks about the energy, vitality, courage, and creativity of freedom, whereas every time I hear Santorum turn to the subject he talks up the fear of freedom.

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM



Comments

1
wow this man is a dummy

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 21, 2012 12:32 PM (sqkOB)

2 Once you go bareback, you never go back.

Posted by: Ricky Santorum at February 21, 2012 12:32 PM (kaOJx)

3 Yeah, it's a real mystery why some of us think that Santorum is not precisely friendly to the limited role of government position.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 21, 2012 12:32 PM (Gk3SS)

4
Even if you're right, Rick, about The Founders' intent,

Who. Fucking. Cares?

What does this have to do with shinola? Nobody cares about this esoteric bullshit.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 21, 2012 12:33 PM (sqkOB)

5 Yes, but free to live my life according to religious doctrine as *I* see it.

So there's that...

Posted by: Running Hobo at February 21, 2012 12:33 PM (l1oyw)

6 The pursuit of happiness means "property". That's what the philosophy Jefferson was following laid it out as.

I don't think Santorum is saying we should force people to follow God's will. He is quite honestly noting that in his view, his freedom is best used and most supremely (IE Religiously) intended to praise God.

Sure, he disparages some uses of freedom. What's wrong with that? It sucks when people use their freedom of speech to burn flags or use their economic freedom to go bankrupt.

But that's freedom too.

Posted by: Dustin at February 21, 2012 12:33 PM (wcT+8)

7
We are so f*cking screwed.

I, for one, welcome our Dictator for Life, King SCOAMF.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:34 PM (UOM48)

8 Romney. Santorum. Gingrich. Paul.

This horse, it's running on four broken legs.

Time to put the poor thing out of its misery...

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at February 21, 2012 12:34 PM (GBXon)

9

First of all, he is right about this, Ace. The Founders did not intend to create Pleasure Island. Their definition of the pursuit of happiness had a bit more depth to it than we commonly think of today with the term "happiness".

That said, I am now officially pulling for Romney. I don't think that this stuff can win against Obama, and we just need to get that clown out.

Posted by: dan-O at February 21, 2012 12:34 PM (sWycd)

10 Argh. All these clowns are killing me. Can the party take a mulligan?

Posted by: Lemmenkainen at February 21, 2012 12:35 PM (ZWvOb)

11 3rd look at Newt?

Posted by: Lauren at February 21, 2012 12:35 PM (/E6lO)

12
SMOD 2012.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:35 PM (UOM48)

13 Gary Johnson, people.

If it's Santorum vs. Obama, and you can't vote for either

Posted by: The Q at February 21, 2012 12:36 PM (LnQhT)

14
It's funny, you know.

While I was filling my tank today, watching the electronic digits wizz by, $20, $33, $77..., I was pondering what The Founders truly meant by "pursuit of happiness."

No, really, it's something that is very important to me.


Posted by: Rick Santorum '12 at February 21, 2012 12:36 PM (sqkOB)

15 Ya know every time I hear someone say that a brokered convention which throws the nomination to someone who was not in it from the get go is not fair,I want to smack that person. Screw fair, I want a candidate that can beat obama. Not much else matters to me.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 21, 2012 12:36 PM (i6RpT)

16 He's right as usual but WHY won't he STFU???

Posted by: jeanne... at February 21, 2012 12:36 PM (GdalM)

17 Maybe we really should run a ham sandwich.

Posted by: yinzer at February 21, 2012 12:36 PM (/Mla1)

18 "I don't think Santorum is saying we should force people to follow God's will. He is quite honestly noting that in his view, his freedom is best used and most supremely (IE Religiously) intended to praise God."

Good effort, Dustin, but you're dealing with people who are now willfully misinterpreting Santorum. Logic and common sense are not to be applied in these circumstances.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 21, 2012 12:36 PM (Ud5vq)

19
brb, fuckin up my frontrunner status and momentum

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 21, 2012 12:37 PM (sqkOB)

20 Get on the Cain Train! 9-9-9 bay-bee!

Posted by: Herman C. at February 21, 2012 12:37 PM (GdalM)

21

And all the stuff on Drudge about Satan targeting the US and stuff... that isn't going to be winning a lot of votes.

And even if he stops talking like this, I'm sure the MSM will dig up plenty of religious sounding quotes from Santorum's past that will scare a lot of voters.


Posted by: dan-O at February 21, 2012 12:37 PM (sWycd)

22 My husband? Well, he's not a cunning linguist.

Posted by: Mrs. Santorum at February 21, 2012 12:37 PM (gtYxe)

23
brb, reachin out to the fringe...

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 21, 2012 12:37 PM (sqkOB)

24 So polygamy is cool then?

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 21, 2012 12:37 PM (RRxwy)

25 Okay, I know I was up all night sick and am a bit woozy right now, but ace, are you adding stuff to the post? Because I swear some of that wasn't there a bit ago.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 21, 2012 12:37 PM (Gk3SS)

26 What he trying to say is if you live by the Ten Commandments you will be happy. And you will be in the long run.

Posted by: Mark formerly in Spokane,now in Sandy Ut at February 21, 2012 12:38 PM (8ac7j)

27 How is this fucking up his campaign? What did he say that was so awful?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:38 PM (zLeKL)

28 He's also not a master debator, as that goes against god's will.

Posted by: Mrs. Santorum at February 21, 2012 12:38 PM (/Mla1)

29 So the problem with Bachmann is she didn't know enough about the founders...and the problem with Santorum is he knows too much?

What the hell?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 21, 2012 12:38 PM (3aXbg)

30 This man is a disaster. And what exactly are conservatives getting from him? Mitt may have brought RomneyCare to Massachusetts, but Santorum brought Medicare Part D to the entire nation. What on earth are people thinking? This guy's no conservative.

Posted by: Caiwyn at February 21, 2012 12:39 PM (ttktr)

31 Yeah, I agree this is pretty bad politicking but he is talking about how he thinks people should use liberty.

At least he knows the word. So, give me Liberty then we can talk, Rick. And by "talk" I mean you talk and I will continue to ignore you and the other scolds.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 21, 2012 12:39 PM (tqxia)

32 More and more I have to agree with the Surber Rule for this election: It's about the economy. Period.

Nothing else matters as much as the economy this time. No matter the question asked, answer with the economy.

FWIW, I agree with dan-o. The Founding Fathers defined happiness as more than the newest smartphone or latest American Idol.

Posted by: Retread at February 21, 2012 12:39 PM (joSBv)

33 Shit like this is why Howdy Doody Santorum got rolled so badly as an incumbent Senator. The ignorant fuck has ADD when it comes to concentrating on what's important.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 21, 2012 12:39 PM (6kwNg)

34

Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected. --George Washington

Posted by: 18-1 at February 21, 2012 12:39 PM (3aXbg)

35 22
My husband? Well, he's not a cunning linguist.

Posted by: Mrs. Santorum at February 21, 2012 12:37 PM (gtYxe)


LOL

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:39 PM (UOM48)

36 In which I defend Rick!

c'mon ---

Rick hadn't finished his waffle yet.

_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 21, 2012 12:40 PM (h6mPj)

37 Isn't this the type of message Americans want to hear? Isn't this part of why he's doing so well in the primaries?

I admit, it sure is nice to hear vs the crap spewing out of Zero's mouth.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:40 PM (zLeKL)

38 How is this fucking up his campaign? What did he say that was so awful?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:38 PM (zLeKL)

A lot of people in this Country do not want to hear about religion this much up and in their face from their candidates.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 21, 2012 12:40 PM (i6RpT)

39 Santorum doesn't approve of heroin junkies.

Oh noes!

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 21, 2012 12:40 PM (7+pP9)

40 "Mr. Franklin, what type of government have you given us?"

"A republic, if you can keep it."

What Santorum has said here is not much different than what Franklin, noted Deist, said about republican government. The onus on keeping up a constitutional republic is up to the individual citizens acting in a morally upright way.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM (Ud5vq)

41 Thank God we got all of these establishment guys running. Can you imagine if Palin had been encouraged to run instead of being disparaged?

We really dodged a bullet there.

Posted by: Voluble at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM (MHQyv)

42
Because this type of stupid talk is a) a waste of time that should be spent on more important issues that people face in their daily grinds, b) it alienates a whole lotta people, c) it creates a distraction, and d) it shows us he's a lousy candidate.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM (sqkOB)

43 First, Santorum is right.

Second, this is only a small part of his overall talk.

Third, nobody we nominate is going to get the velvet glove treatment.



Posted by: McLovin at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM (j0IcY)

44 As I've tried to explain to European friends before the freedom to be stupid and do dumb, foolish shit is ultimately the only real freedom.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM (CkoMi)

45 1
wow this man is a dummy



Don't be so hard on Ace. He's just an Ewok after all.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM (34fpm)

46 Gary Johnson, people.
If it's Santorum vs. Obama, and you can't vote for eitherPosted by: The Q


How does he differ from RuPaul? Does he think the US is the source of all the world's problems?

I never took the time to read up on his positions.. Is he still running?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM (9Hw3U)

47 However, let me posit the strange notion that perhaps a limited government, interested in maximizing citizen freedom by simultaneously limiting its ambit to only those functions it absolutely must perform, ought not to be in the business of insuring that each citizen make the right decision.

Freedom isn't just the freedom to make the right decision. Freedom is also the freedom to make the wrong decision. A government that only gives you the freedom to make the right decision isn't given you much freedom at all, and is assuming a paternalistic, daddy-says-so relationship to its citizens.

And Santorum would disagree with this sentiment? I admit I haven't been following politics lately and am now just getting back to it. Could someone please give me a rundown on why people think Rick Santorum is a big government guy?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:41 PM (zLeKL)

48 Popping popcorn now...let's get started on another dumb debate on how Santorum going to make us all go to church! and he can't beat Obama and this dead guys said this...ugg!

Posted by: Brian at February 21, 2012 12:42 PM (wTSvK)

49
Subjects I'd like our candidates to focus on:

The economy
Afghanistan
Iran
The economy
Becoming energy independent...drill here, drill now
The economy
Killing Barky Care
etc.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:42 PM (UOM48)

50 ace,

Have you stopped to consider that Santorum is playing 11 dimensional chess - the same as Obama -

By laying out the argument on the basis of religious beliefs - Santorum is going to drag Obama's kicking-and-screaming onto the Plains of Jeremiah Wright and expose Obama as the whack-a-doodle he is.

... I, for one, welcome the impending Freak-Out by the Left and the Incredulity of the Agnostics, of which you are a bellwether.

_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 21, 2012 12:43 PM (h6mPj)

51 "The aggregate happiness of the society, which is best
promoted by the practice of a virtuous policy, is, or ought to be, the
end of all government . . . ."
George Washington

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at February 21, 2012 12:43 PM (34fpm)

52 So what you're telling me is that I have to vote for Romney now?

Posted by: John P. Squibob at February 21, 2012 12:43 PM (kqqGm)

53
People aren't in the mood for a revival meeting.

People don't need a goddam pep talk. You go to church for that stuff. You open your Holy Bible for that stuff.


Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 12:43 PM (sqkOB)

54 You misspelled "Happyness".

_

Posted by: Will Smith at February 21, 2012 12:43 PM (h6mPj)

55
>>>And Santorum would disagree with this sentiment? I admit I haven't been following politics lately and am now just getting back to it. Could someone please give me a rundown on why people think Rick Santorum is a big government guy?

His voting record, his comments concerning libertarian though, his record on earmarks, pork, spending, etc.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 12:43 PM (wuv1c)

56 But isn't it interesting that there still isn't a rational given to actually support Romney? It's always "electability" and how evil, stupid, or immoral the other candidate of the week is.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 21, 2012 12:44 PM (tqxia)

57 "Our greatest happiness does not depend on the condition of life in
which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good
health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 12:44 PM (+GTBC)

58 You're right we should support the same person McCain supports, we know he has the conservatives best interests at heart.

Posted by: Dumpsterjuse at February 21, 2012 12:44 PM (B6U0F)

59 How is this fucking up his campaign? What did he say that was so awful?
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:38 PM (zLeKL)

Other than missing the entire point of the constitution not much. For one thing he was quoting the Declaration if Independence, not the constitution. You would think a presidential candidate would know the difference.

The constitution gives you the right to or not to practice religion in the first amendment. The rest of it is about giving you liberty to live your life how you please with the least interference from the government possible.

Posted by: robtr at February 21, 2012 12:44 PM (MtwBb)

60 "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to
political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to
subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props
of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principles."--George Washington

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at February 21, 2012 12:44 PM (34fpm)

61 Freedom costs a buck-o- fiiiiiive.

Posted by: garrett at February 21, 2012 12:45 PM (gtYxe)

62 "Freedom's just another word for . . . nothing left to lose!"

Posted by: One of the Worst Fucking Singers in the History of the Universe at February 21, 2012 12:45 PM (RtpCp)

63 Does God allow for collective bargaining for His employees?

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 21, 2012 12:45 PM (DfKgg)

64 Two weeks ago I was thinking, OK maybe I need to find out more about this Santorum guy...

...I've found out all I need to know...

...I know I need to go invent a fucking time machine stat. This next 4 are gonna really suck really bad, no matter who wins.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 12:45 PM (fyHyt)

65 Yikes.

Posted by: lorien1973 at February 21, 2012 12:46 PM (0tkqC)

66
>>Gary Johnson, people.

>>If it's Santorum vs. Obama, and you can't vote for either


I'll be honest. Before Perry got in, I was pulling for Gary Johnson. I had hoped that Ron Paul stayed out and let someone else carry the torch of libertarianism within the Republican party, but alas Ron Paul is on an ego fulled mission.

I really do like Gary Johnson. He was popular in his state, cut gov't workers and left a very large surplus.
I would have been happy with him as our candidate. However, I will not vote third party in this election. I will pull the lever for the Republican candidate.
At this point, I would prefer Romney. The other three are jokes that would probably lose 30-35 states.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 12:46 PM (wuv1c)

67 The more Santorum opens his fat yap, the closer I get to putting a Romney 2012 sticker on my bumper.

I'm slowly talking myself off the ledge about Romney, and a couple of things are helping.

Remember when Scott Walker was running for the Senate from MA awhile back, and this place was in full pudding-dippin' frenzy when he won? (QOTD 'So this is where Camelot ends, in a bathroom stall...')

Well, as much as the Moron Hoard loved Walker, I get the sense that Mitt may be just a smidge to the right of him. I have no supporting data whatsoever, but Mitt also seems like the type to do or say whatever it takes to get elected (more so than most), and will do whatever it takes to stay elected--and I'm anticipating a full on Republican takedown of the Senate this time around, along with a bigger mojo in the House. So maybe congress can keep him on the right path?

Also, as much as it pains me to say it, Mitt is probably the most electable in the general election, especially when compared to the other two, and that Paul buffoon.

And didn't we *all* jump on the McCain bandwagon last time around? That guy is a total turd, yet I voted for his sorry ass. Romney is somewhat more palatable.

I'm firmly in the anybody-but-Obama camp, but if we lose this one, I'm going to hold a personal grudge against the big man from NJ and also those retards who were handling the Perry campaign...

Posted by: Uncle Mikey at February 21, 2012 12:46 PM (uLf/1)

68
"There is no truth more thoroughly established than
that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union
between virtue and happiness." George Washington

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 12:46 PM (+GTBC)

69 I'm glad we changed it from 'Life, Liberty and Sweet Poontang.'

Posted by: T. Jefferson, and shit he said at February 21, 2012 12:46 PM (MMC8r)

70 Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 12:43 PM (sqkOB)
--------
Suppose they are in that sort of mood now. After what we've endured the last four years, with Zero bowing to foreign leaders, disparaging America left and right...maybe this is a breath of fresh air for people.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:46 PM (zLeKL)

71 Actually, the Founders wanted --intended-- was to complete the phrase as "life, liberty, and property," but it was altered due to foreseeing controversies over slavery.

Posted by: logprof at February 21, 2012 12:46 PM (dnflv)

72





“It is religion and morality alone which can establish the
principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation
of a free constitution is pure virtue.”--John Adams


Posted by: 18-1 at February 21, 2012 12:47 PM (3aXbg)

73 Is He indicating He would have laws written to keep everyone from committing error? or is He sharing a personal view of what possibly ails us?

Posted by: willow at February 21, 2012 12:47 PM (TomZ9)

74
>>"Freedom's just another word for . . . nothing left to lose!"
I've never understood that lyric. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 12:47 PM (wuv1c)

75 F. Hayek agrees with Ace. That's why he wrote "Why I am Not a Conservative."

Both the left and right have laws that they want us to follow; Hayek didn't want to be compelled to obey the right's either, even if they were good for him.

Posted by: PJ at February 21, 2012 12:47 PM (DQHjw)

76 He's absolutely right on the founders, and he's absolutely right on the issue today as well. People who just want stuff are going to run to the liberals every time.

He's not saying that he wants the government dictating the will of God to us at all. He's never said that. He's saying that if we just run a campaign based only on who's going to make us richer, we might as well be liberals. And he's right.

I thought we wanted guys that said what they actually believed instead of just telling us what they think we want to hear all the time? I thought conservatism was all about looking at the good of society as a whole and not just voting our own selfish interests all the time? I thought conservatism was all about recognizing the underlying moral fabric of the culture and how intimately connected that is to our overall wellbeing? Recognizing that the constitution only works when there's an underlying moral framework that restrains men's greed?

I guess not. I guess maybe the libs are right. If even the conservatives are just interested in their stuff, we might as well pitch the constitution now.

You're never going have limited government, Ace, until you recognize the necessity for moral restraint that underlies it, and that's exactly what Santorum is talking about.

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 12:47 PM (WsFyX)

77 And when it comes to gun rights Santorum is basically a Democrat.
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1046

But he's the ABR so he MUST be conservative.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 21, 2012 12:48 PM (CkoMi)

78 If there are any born again Christian types commenting, let me know if I'm missing something.

Many of my born again friends find an amazing amount of liberty in the idea of constraint. They decide not to participate in pre-marital sex, which frees them from this perceived evil, and gives them the ability to focus on other things.

Leftists tend to think that freedom from having to provide for themselves also gives them the freedom to do what they want. For example, they'll let the government provide insurance for them, in order to escape paying for it directly, but give up the freedom to make the choice about the type of insurance or if they want it at all.

Obviously these things are different, but they seem to be attached in the sense that the proponents believe they are absolutely correct and preach the morality of their chosen way of life. I always get the feeling that given the circumstance they would impose their lack of freedom if they could.

Maybe this is why people fear Santorum?

Posted by: MJ at February 21, 2012 12:48 PM (/x4oj)

79 .maybe this is a breath of fresh air for people.
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:46 PM (zLeKL)


If this were a breath of fresh air, people would not be hyperventilating about it like they are

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 21, 2012 12:48 PM (i6RpT)

80 Sorry, just needed to vent...

Posted by: Uncle Mikey at February 21, 2012 12:48 PM (uLf/1)

81 Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
john adams

Posted by: newrouter at February 21, 2012 12:48 PM (xD4bD)

82 "It is neither wealth nor splendor, but tranquility and occupation which give
happiness." - Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 12:49 PM (+GTBC)

83 Ace is getting closer to nominating Palin

Posted by: Satan at February 21, 2012 12:49 PM (OhYCU)

84 Unlike Ace and gabe, I will announced that I am officially supporting Romney for the GOP nomination.

Enough Santorum. Enough Newt. Romney is the least offensive one to me.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 21, 2012 12:49 PM (kaOJx)

85 Even the folks here who love Santorum and think contraception is evil, etc, etc...Don't you see what the rest of us are saying about why he's unelectable?

With unemployment on its way back up and Europe on the brink, 2012 should be a referendum on the economy and debt. Instead many of you are wanting to make it a referendum on "sin" and the like.

You are playing right into the Democrats hands but are too blinkered to realize it.

Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 12:49 PM (6VB4r)

86 Hi Ace. I am definitely a Christian - and I am definitely libertarian, in the sense that I see the whole point of our country being personal freedom and liberty. If that goes, my ability to worship God goes. (See - Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, the whole fucking Middle East, .. add nausea..).
You say you are a humanist - well I'm not, at least in the sense I "think" you mean. But what I know of you tells me that personal liberty is maybe the thing you value the most in life. Well, me too, I just approach it a little differently.
We have a common cause, and I really believe we're on the same side in this fight.
And I will be damned if anyone is going to drive a wedge into that common cause. If that happens, we will surely lose. They had it right when they said "we will all hang together, or we will surely hang separately".

Posted by: tubal at February 21, 2012 12:50 PM (BoE3Z)

87 The rent is too damn high.

Posted by: Jimmy McMillan at February 21, 2012 12:50 PM (/Mla1)

88 I LOVE this guy! Santorum.

By God, he's going to sink or swim with who he is and that is so damn refreshing! Keep going Rick!

Posted by: basket case nation at February 21, 2012 12:50 PM (Wa/0G)

89 "And didn't we *all* jump on the McCain bandwagon last time around?"

Nope. We were all pretty much loaded on using cattle prods and death threats.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 12:50 PM (fyHyt)

90 Ace, you are being a horse's ass on this topic. Nowhere has he ever said that YOU personally must believe the Catholic Church on a single damned issue or object. What he says is correct--freedom is not the same as license. Freedom is NOT the ability to do any damned thing you like, regardless of consequence. That is license, and it is costly both in monetary terms and in human terms. Freedom is truly only freedom when it leads to the morally positive. Otherwise the damage you do by exercising license restricts another's freedom.

Maybe this is too deep for you. I'm beginning to think your judgement on this issue is clouded by your bigotry.

Posted by: tcn at February 21, 2012 12:50 PM (ZOUmX)

91 necessity for moral restraint that underlies it, and that's exactly what Santorum is talking about.

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 12:47 PM (WsFyX)***
Well said.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 21, 2012 12:51 PM (3aXbg)

92 Santorum=The Church Lady

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 12:51 PM (ZPrif)

93
"All right, lads, enough of the finer things.
You've animals to tend to and water to haul."

-- Robert Roy MacGregor
Rob Roy (1995)

Let's win the goddam election and then we can ponder and
contemplate to our heart's content.


Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 12:51 PM (sqkOB)

94 i'm with Ben, we're stuck w/ 4 buffons, why not go w/ the one more likely to win?

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 12:51 PM (yAor6)

95 >>>Apparently the Pursuit of Happiness just means that I'm free to live my life according to religious doctrine.

OK I've listened to the whole thing. The only conclusion I draw from what he has said is, you have to have a moral people to have a free society. I happen to agree with that 100%. An amoral society cannot be free. He does not suggest it is the job of government to legislate morality where it is lacking.

Based on your analysis I can only assume one of two things is true.

1. Either you've decided Mitt Romney is the absolute best candidate we have right now, and are willing to push a little intellectual honesty aside in order to get him the nomination.

2. You are so hypersensitive to the concept of theocracy, any discussion morality and how it relates in a absolute manner to God and in a practical manner to society and governance triggers a Tourette's like rant against legislated morality.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (0q2P7)

96 I agree whole heartedly with Ace.

Who the hell knows what those founders meant, I mean the Declaration of Constitution was written more then 100 years ago!

Posted by: Ezra Klein at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (3aXbg)

97 He was speaking at Redeemer Church in GA on a Sunday night. Of course there was a religious component to the speech.

Posted by: Reno_Dave at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (OL4L4)

98 Huusker,

Those are some nice quotes. However, what you fail to grasp is that, for the founders, it was the job of the State to provide for the POSSIBILITY of happiness and virtue, not to enforce or regulate it.


Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (6VB4r)

99 ok, Jason I do agree He would do well encouraging the conversation re debt and all the fiscal issues facing us, does He and that is ignored or is this all He speaks of? Or is this all that is brought to our attention?

Posted by: willow at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (TomZ9)

100 >>>First of all, he is right about this, Ace. The Founders did not intend to create Pleasure Island.

Yes, they did-- they intended that everyone should pursue his own interests and passions, subject to the lightest control of the state possible.

I don't understand how people get so Hot about Michelle Obama's annoying intrusions into the health sphere but then say "Santorum's intrusions into the moral health sphere are awesome."

Posted by: ace at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (nj1bB)

101 Who could it be? Who could it be that makes our tingly bits go all sparkly when we vote for pretty, little Obama? Could it be .... SATAN!?!!?!?!

Posted by: Rick "Church Lady" Santorum at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (ZPrif)

102 I've been unemployed for 3 years, liquidated my 401 K, I don't fall under the Obama rules for refi-ing my uinderwater mortgage (being the wrong color) , and gas may climb over $5 a gallon.
But the Republican candidates...one dumped his wife 20 years ago, one is a Mormon, and one isa devout Catholic and seems to be proud of it.
So, I vote to re-elect the Worst. President. Ever. Okay?

Posted by: Mushy Insaniac at February 21, 2012 12:53 PM (YmPwQ)

103 Unbelieveable that in 2012, after all we've been through, the GOP is going to nominate Mitt Nannystate or Rick Nannystate.
The collapse and replacement of the GOP cannot come soon enough.

Posted by: montgomery burns at February 21, 2012 12:53 PM (K/USr)

104 They decide not to participate in pre-marital sex, which frees them from
this perceived evil, and gives them the ability to focus on other
things.





Worked for me.

Posted by: George Costanza at February 21, 2012 12:53 PM (X6akg)

105 I sense a disappearance of Red Bull and a corresponding number of halfassed Santorum posts in the works.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 21, 2012 12:53 PM (tqxia)

106 Yet Santorum attracts the Tea Party vote. Simply amazing lack of philosophical coherence.

No point in a Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels running. Republican primary voters don't want to hear about the impending welfare state meltdown, they just want to listen to speeches about how the devil is coming after the U.S. all while dreaming of sucking off the public tit.

Posted by: Spike at February 21, 2012 12:54 PM (wtnmC)

107 You are playing right into the Democrats hands but are too blinkered to realize it.


Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 12:49 PM (6VB4r)

So, you think we should only address topics that the democrats have neatly packaged for us, and if we reframe the question entirely, that would make us unelectable.
Got it. Heaven forbid someone interject common sense or morality in the morass of hideousness that has been heaped up by amoral democratic baby murderers or the like. Stay on the reservation, candidate. Don't change the topic.

Posted by: tcn at February 21, 2012 12:54 PM (ZOUmX)

108 Much ado about nothing, proles.

The nomination is mine. Prepare for a campaign the likes o. which you've never seen. Since the last "it's his turn" guy anyway.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 21, 2012 12:54 PM (Ii//c)

109 Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

Posted by: newrouter at February 21, 2012 12:54 PM (xD4bD)

110 4
Even if you're right, Rick, about The Founders' intent, Who. Fucking. Cares?What does this have to do with shinola? Nobody cares about this esoteric bullshit.


Under the bus go the Founders, the Constitution, and all that esoteric bullshit. That stuff is, like, so old and confusing.

Wake up. The American founding is not the wet dream of you libertarian fantasists.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at February 21, 2012 12:54 PM (34fpm)

111 97
He was speaking at Redeemer Church in GA on a Sunday night. Of course there was a religious component to the speech.

Posted by: Reno_Dave at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (OL4L4)


Which, ironically, is located in Cumming, GA.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (UOM48)

112 When Santorum was in the Senate did He try to push Moral code laws, or is this Personal opinion shit?

Posted by: willow at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (TomZ9)

113 You're never going have limited government, Ace,
until you recognize the necessity for moral restraint that underlies it,
and that's exactly what Santorum is talking about.Posted by: Matt from CO


The voters are not looking for a Pastor in Chief. We don't need a moral scold delivering sermons from the WH.

We need someone to focus like the proverbial laser on the damn economy. If the GOP can't come up with a candidate willing to do that at every interview, speech, and debate, then Obama will be re-elected and he will appoint 2 or possibly 3 Leftists on SCOTUS.

What do you think of the decisions a solid Left bench will deliver? Morally restrained? Limited in scope?

Philosopher, heal thyself.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (9Hw3U)

114 "Freedom is truly only freedom when it leads to the morally positive.
Otherwise the damage you do by exercising license restricts another's
freedom."

Yea, yea, blah, blah, blah. Doesn't matter what he means, or intended, if he's going to be handing out ammunition to the opposition by the truckload because he doesn't understand the nature of today's hyper-sensitive gotcha politics.

He needs to clue the fuck up, fast, or Obama and the DNC will eat him alive with out of context video's of his own words.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (fyHyt)

115 If Romney and Newt drop out, Ron Paul will start to look like a much better candidate than Rick. At this point I'm actually not too bothered by that, and it scares the crap out of me.

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston would be forever alone without AoS at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (ijjAe)

116 Why do these clowns keep acting like caricatures of themselves?

Posted by: Lance McCormick, solidly on Team Prime (for now) at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (bp264)

117 Help us Zombie Reagan--You're our only hope!

Posted by: Uncle Mikey at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (uLf/1)

118 Because Michelle actually seems to have an active Food Police Force interrogating 4 years olds. I'm not worried about Santorum imposing a theocracy on me.

Posted by: Mushy Insaniac at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (YmPwQ)

119 George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Posted by: newrouter at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (xD4bD)

120 Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (UOM4
thats hillarious, hey Jane if you got a facebook join the facebook group, they've been asking for you

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (yAor6)

121 Wow, the GOP/Tea Party sure knows how to pick em.

Posted by: thegreatsatan at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (RCSoG)

122 >>>I don't understand how people get so Hot about Michelle Obama's annoying intrusions into the health sphere but then say "Santorum's intrusions into the moral health sphere are awesome."

Santorum is only guilty of bad campaigning here.

Michelle is trying to get the government to enforce her ideas with regard to arugula.

Santorum is trying to teach, and get people to think about, the concepts of morality, reponsibility, happiness, and how they apply to the social contract that is government.

How is Santorum intruding into the moral sphere? He is just speaking out about these topics. And as seen in some of the comments by the other morons, all of the Founders had strong opinions here as well. And were just as outspoken about it.

Posted by: dan-O at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (sWycd)

123
Holy shit, I thought Mitch Daniels was a pussy with his whole truce thing -- he wanted instead to focus on economic/fiscal issues.

The only mistake Daniels made was opening his big stupid mouth about truce instead of avoiding the topics altogether.




Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (sqkOB)

124 Rick "Satan and Sodomy" Santorum.

Just racking up the independent vote there. Well played.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (ZPrif)

125 Have you stopped to consider that Santorum is playing 11 dimensional chess

As long as he's not playing chess for pleasure, I suppose that would be OK.

Santorum '12
Let me put my morals in you

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (+lsX1)

126 What did Santorum say he was going to do, policy wise, if elected? I think he's just speaking about god and religion. That's it, that's all.

Did he actually say he wanted to ban contraception or was he just giving an opinion on it?

Even if he wanted to ban contraception, he couldn't. I doubt he even said he wants to ban it.

ace, this religion talk used to bug me too, but I accept that it gives a lot of people comfort, even if I don't believe in god.

Just because he's talking about religion doesn't mean he can or wants to make America a theocracy.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (zLeKL)

127 "...clowns keep acting..."

What makes you think they're acting? My theory is they all really are this tone deaf and stupid.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (fyHyt)

128 I don't understand how people get so Hot about
Michelle Obama's annoying intrusions into the health sphere but then say
"Santorum's intrusions into the moral health sphere are awesome."





Posted by: ace at February 21, 2012 12:52 PM (nj1bB)

What intrusions? Where has he said he will mandate anything based on his moral position? What ox of your is being gored?
I'm thinking this is somewhat dishonest.

Posted by: tcn at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (ZOUmX)

129
>>>First of all, he is right about this, Ace. The Founders did not intend to create Pleasure Island.


Pleasure Island? No?
Whore Island? Let's hope so.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (wuv1c)

130 Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Posted by: newrouter at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (xD4bD)

131 But... but... Santorum is the most electable.

Posted by: Satan at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (OhYCU)

132
Look, you fuckers. The reason I wrote the Declaration of Independence was because I wanted to start a brand new country that could be ruled only by Sharia Law. Then that dick Madison had to go and write the Constitution in such a way that my nefarious plans were stymied.

I tried again during my presidency withall that bullshit with the Barbery Pirates.We were supposed to lose that war, and then I was going to sue for peace, and ask that they allow us political autonomy in exchange for the entire country converting to Islam and imposing ShariaLaw. Fucking Stephen Decatur scotched that plan.Thebastard.

Don'tworry, my long-term plans included black-mailing John Adams with nude pictures of him with his male secretary, and demanding as the price of my silence that he appoint John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Knowing as I did that the ginned up controversy in Marbury v. Madison would result in the Supreme Court having the ability to make law on a whim, eventually I knew that the Court would become so corrupt that it would rule that Sharia Law is the only constitutional religion in the US. Coming to a ruling near youin 2014!!!

Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Shit Jefferson Said, V. VII, page 296 (1805) Freedom Press at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (RtpCp)

133 "So, you think we should only address topics that the democrats have
neatly packaged for us, and if we reframe the question entirely, that
would make us unelectable."

Whatever boss, enjoy your noble defeat standing tall against the sinful forces of modernity.

Me and the others are telling you the way it is, but you want to hear it in the way that makes you feel special.

Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (6VB4r)

134 #76

"You're never going have limited government, Ace, until you recognize the necessity for moral restraint that underlies it, and that's exactly what Santorum is talking about."

Yeah, tell that to the Swedes who now routinely score higher than the USA on economic freedom indices, and have neat things like school choice.

Posted by: Spike at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (wtnmC)

135 Third look at Gingrich, anyone?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (+inic)

136 Santorum recognizes, like a lot of people don't, that the only way the liberal project works is if you first destroy the moral foundations of our culture. The assault on marriage, the assault of the sanctity of life, the assault on hard work and responsibility- all of these things are necessary to create a culture of people who are willing to be dependent on the government to take care of them.

Santorum is not saying that the government needs to mandate contraception policy for everyone. Quite the opposite. He's saying that the only way freedom works is if people are self-restrained. Right now, the government is actively undermining all of the moral principles that make liberty possible. If we keep allowing the state to do that, then liberty is lost. The statists do not want a moral people, because a moral people cannot be controlled. That is what this whole contraception fight is really about. Santorum gets it. He's calling for the state to stop undermining the moral principles that make liberty possible.

You're just fighting the symptoms of the disease, Ace. Santorum is talking about the cause of the disease itself.

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (WsFyX)

137 Rick is very well spoken on these matters and it is obvious these are the issues in which his beliefs run the deepest. I don't think he cares much about shrinking the size of government too much. He flat out admitted that economic issues aren't that important so there's that too.

I agree with him on the founders intent but he is making it very easy for our adversaries to take him out of context and caricature him as some sort of religious zealot bent on imposing his beliefs on the nation. I don't think he belongs in this race. The election is going to turn on economic matters, re-igniting the culture war is not the path to victory in the fall.

If there were such a thing as a cabinet level morality czar, Santorum would THE guy for that job. That seems to be the job he is running for, not president.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (9zzk+)

138 SMOD 2012 is lookin' pretty sweet.

Posted by: lorien1973 at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (0tkqC)

139 I remember reading in Forrest McDonald's book Novus Ordo Seclorum that the "life, liberty, and pursuit of" line was pulled from another source well known to the Founders, but that it was originally the "pursuit of property". I don't recall the reason why it was changed though - for the reason Santorum states, because the pursuit of property didn't sound high-minded enough, or otherwise.

It's a pretty interesting book, by the way.

Posted by: Xander Crews at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (bzur9)

140 Reverend Rick just can't STFU about this, can he

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (Y+DPZ)

141 So....

Where did Santorum say this?

It looks like a church.

I went to the link and within a minute Santorum refers to-

"Pastor Lee".

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (r2PLg)

142 Is there any indication that this religious talk is actually hurting his campaign? Any polls that show Americans want him to lay off the god-talk?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (zLeKL)

143 Posted by: newrouter at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (xD4bD) id point out George Washington had mistresses and may have fathered an illegitimate child

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (yAor6)

144 120
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (UOM4

thats hillarious, hey Jane if you got a facebook join the facebook group, they've been asking for you

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 12:56 PM (yAor6)


I appreciate that. Haven't gotten around to Facebook. My husband is on it.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (UOM48)

145 Ya know every time I hear someone say that a
brokered convention which throws the nomination to someone who was not
in it from the get go is not fair,I want to smack that person. Screw
fair, I want a candidate that can beat obama. Not much else matters to
me.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 21, 2012 12:36 PM (i6RpT)

This.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (cPJUK)

146 >>>Apparently the Pursuit of Happiness just means that I'm free to live my life according to religious doctrine.

Well, it certainly doesn't mean the right to follow poor Kate Upton home throwing garbage at her.

Posted by: mike at February 21, 2012 12:59 PM (HqgJD)

147 Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (UOM4
I will pass the message to them

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 12:59 PM (yAor6)

148 Some people say freedom isn't free. I say freedom isn't freedom.

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 21, 2012 12:59 PM (wTawr)

149 Go dig up some of the stuff Romney said at HIS church and get back to me.

Posted by: JR3 at February 21, 2012 12:59 PM (rHaMl)

150 A big hearty 'thank you' to the purity pimps in the GOP for keeping the decent conservatives out of the race.

Posted by: Dan Rather, Retired Media Tycoon at February 21, 2012 12:59 PM (54/YX)

151 125
Have you stopped to consider that Santorum is playing 11 dimensional chess

As long as he's not playing chess for pleasure, I suppose that would be OK.

Santorum '12
Let me put my morals in you


Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 21, 2012 12:57 PM (+lsX1)

--One of Levin's guest hosts last week posited that Romney may be playing a game of chess as well by staying pat on the Romneycare issue (I think that was the issue). I hope he's right. It may be a pipe dream, but I do enjoy fantasies of Romney unleashing Teh Negative on King Barry the way he has on Newt.

Posted by: logprof at February 21, 2012 12:59 PM (dnflv)

152 He needs to clue the fuck up, fast, or Obama and the DNC will eat him alive with out of context video's of his own words.


Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 12:55 PM (fyHyt)

How about we step outside of this gotcha crap and actually propose some changes to society that might save the country? Or should we just play in the morass of evil proposed by the democrats? I for one do not care to watch politicians rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic for four more years.

Posted by: tcn at February 21, 2012 01:00 PM (ZOUmX)

153 He is right that only a moral culture can survive.

The problem is that the left has been undermining moral culture for the past 50 years. The family is falling apart, and with it the morality of our youth.

The answer to left wing social engineering isn't right wing social engineering, though.

Posted by: Lauren at February 21, 2012 01:00 PM (/E6lO)

154 When you get down to it, there's a strong argument to be made that all legislating is in some way legislating a morality. Murder, theft, rape - the big stuff we all think should be against the law all goes back to morality, if not a specific religious sect. So I don't think "you can't legislate morality" is a strong argument.

That being said, I think Santorum would, if he could, legislate morality in a way that would be as overbearing as the kind of shit the Warmists or the gun-grabbers or the food police try to do. That's why he's wrong and a bad choice as the nominee.

Posted by: shillelagh at February 21, 2012 01:00 PM (hRzu2)

155 "Yet Santorum attracts the Tea Party vote. Simply amazing lack of philosophical coherence."

It really is tragic.

I was actually really hopefully about the Tea Party, but then when I started seeing polls that show even they were 75% opposed to reforming Medicare and SS...then I realized DOOM is the future and nothing can stop it.

Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 01:00 PM (6VB4r)

156 Even if you're right, Rick, about The Founders' intent, Who. Fucking.
Cares?What does this have to do with shinola? Nobody cares about this
esoteric bullshit.
***
And the argument for Romney becomes perfected.

A President who will talk about God and morality? THE HORROR.

A President that puts the state in charge of healthcare? Oh, ok.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (3aXbg)

157
Unemployment is 9%, an intrusive healthcare bill was passed that give the goverment control of 1/6 of the economy, our stature abroad is in decline, we have too many regulations, a bank bill was passed that complicates banking hurts smaller banks and benefits larger banks, and we're considering nominating a guy who thinks what I do with my dick is a big societal concern.

Nice!

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (wuv1c)

158 Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 01:00 PM (6VB4r)
+1

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (yAor6)

159 Edmund Burke in 1790:

"When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a strong principle at work; and this, for a while, is all I can possibly know of it. The wild gas,the fixed air, is plainly broke loose; but we ought to suspend our judgment until the first effervescence is a little subsided, till the liquor is cleared, and until we see something deeper than the agitation of a troubled and frothy surface. I must be tolerably sure, before I venture publicly to congratulate men upon a blessing, that they have really received one. Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver, and adulation is not of more service to the people than to kings. I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints."

Santorum's concept of an ordered liberty is a lot closer to what the Founders thought. Pretending that he's "scary" is playing the liberals' game.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (qHCyt)

160 Republican Presidential candidates really shouldn't lecture in public about sodomy or satan.

This isn't that hard. Repubs have been doing this for decades. You shake hands warmly with the famous preacher who rants about satan and sodomy. You don't do that yourself.

Because you look like a crazy, right-wing nutjob to 2/3rds of the country when you start talking about satan.

You can't win an election with 1/3rd of the vote.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (ZPrif)

161 Happiness in the 18th century was living til 40.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (lVGED)

162 Rick just jumped the shark. I have long since known of his off the cuff babble, but this Satan thing is a bit too much for me.
Look on the bright side, at least he didn't collapse in the general.

Posted by: booter at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (deujC)

163 We all understand the culture is upstream from politics and that is the true cause of so many of our problems. My question for Santorum is how does a president instill morality in a populace that has no interest in being lectured to by government?

The federal government is the one of the most immoral institutions there is in this country. What standing would Santorum have as the leader of that entity to tell the rest of us what WE should be doing?

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 21, 2012 01:02 PM (9zzk+)

164 I think most people in that setting are going to get the-

"historical perspective" argument.

Democrats have campaigned in churches for decades.

You can find Clinton giving speeches in black churches.

Of course the referees are the media so....

they are, and I guess in turn the electorate are only comfortable with-

Democrats campaigning at religious gatherings.

So once again we have to realize that what Democrats do, cannot be done by Republicans.

The "rules" are made by the Liberal media.

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:02 PM (r2PLg)

165 139
I remember reading in Forrest McDonald's book Novus Ordo Seclorum that
the "life, liberty, and pursuit of" line was pulled from another source
well known to the Founders, but that it was originally the "pursuit of
property". I don't recall the reason why it was changed though - for the
reason Santorum states, because the pursuit of property didn't sound
high-minded enough, or otherwise.

It's a pretty interesting book, by the way.


Posted by: Xander Crews at February 21, 2012 12:58 PM (bzur9)

--As I mentioned above, it was the implications regarding slavery that made them change "property" to "the pursuit of happiness."

Posted by: logprof at February 21, 2012 01:02 PM (dnflv)

166 Time to talk some more about a VP?

I'd vote for any of these idiots if they had a Dick Cheney on the undercard. Heck, I voted the last time around based on VP. :-)

Posted by: Tonic Dog at February 21, 2012 01:02 PM (X/+QT)

167 Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (wuv1c)
whatever it takes to stop Romney,screw the consequences don't ya know?

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:02 PM (yAor6)

168 So I have the right to life, liberty (as long as I use it properly) and the pursuit of whatever makes the spaghetti monster happy?

As we learn from The Book of Mormon: Hasa Diga Eebowai.

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at February 21, 2012 01:02 PM (a5ljo)

169 Ace's problem is that he reads too much Ayn Rand and not enough Edmund Burke or John Locke. Sorry to break the news to you liberaltarians, but this country wasn't established in a bloody war of independence against the greatest military power on earth by a bunch of farmers and shop-keepers, nor were 600,000 of our forefathers slaughtered in a carnage of civil war, nor did millions of our grandparents go all around the world to defeat fascism and communism so some selfish douche bags could spend their days playing Xbox, smoking weed, masturbating to internet porn, and blogging about what "true conservatism" is.

There isn't a single thing in that speech Santorum gave that is any way in conflict with American values of liberty and responsibility. If you think this election is going to turn on who can give away the most amount of other peoples' stuff, we might as well give up now. The only effective way to attack Obama's policies is to attack the fundamental basis for them, which is Obama's un-American world-view. Santorum is doing exactly what needs to be done and what McCain was, and Romney is, too much of a pussy to do.

This country doesn't exist so you can get your rocks off. If you think it does you ain't a conservative, pal.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 21, 2012 01:02 PM (dcoFe)

170 So it appearsRick has achicken fucking problem of his own.
*
Who new??

Posted by: dananjcon at February 21, 2012 01:03 PM (8ieXv)

171 "The order of nature is that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue." - Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 01:03 PM (+GTBC)

172 @ 159 Santorum's concept of an ordered liberty is a lot closer to what the Founders thought. Pretending that he's "scary" is playing the liberals' game.


What are you, a theocrat? Don't you know that "pursuit of happiness" was talking about the constitutional right to gay sex?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:03 PM (+inic)

173 Yea, the squishy moderate Republican is a much better option.

Posted by: Car in at February 21, 2012 01:03 PM (DmjB0)

174 My question for Santorum is how does a president instill morality in a populace that has no interest in being lectured to by government?

*****

Well in this case Santorum is "lecturing" at a church it looks like.

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:03 PM (r2PLg)

175
Next time Rick is in a church, instead of pandering and preaching, tell the congregation your plan to make energy more affordable.

He'd be shocked at how well that is received. It's funny, but church-going folk drive cars and heat their homes, too.

So unless Rick Santorum is running for Pastor-in-Chief, he should stick to politics and explain how his policies would make it easier for people to get to church and heat the church.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (sqkOB)

176 I thought freedom was just another word for nothing left to lose?

Posted by: blaster at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (7vSU0)

177 Santorum's worst problem? He's undisciplined.

He keeps serving up more for his enemies to use against him.

Posted by: nickless at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (MMC8r)

178 So... where's the line for the Medically Induced Coma again?

Posted by: gekkobear at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (X0NX1)

179 I'd just like to point out that all of the, you know, founding fathers were quite religious, and made reference to the creator pretty much all the time.

If you transported ace and Santorum back in time to the founding I'm pretty sure ace would have had the shit kicked out of him by Hamilton or Hancock.

Posted by: McLovin at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (j0IcY)

180 Damn, Michelle Malkin looks hot in that ad on the home page.

Posted by: logprof at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (dnflv)

181

A government that only gives you the freedom to make the right decision
isn't given you much freedom at all, and is assuming a paternalistic,
daddy-says-so relationship to its citizens.



Yeah, that John Adams, James Madison, Augustine, Aristotle ... all pikers and hacks!!!

Did your father disown you or something, ace?

Michelle Obama doesn't have 3,000 years of moral philosophy behind her totalitarian impulses, buddy. And that, I say, makes a world of difference, up to and including removing the danger of any form of real tyranny from the logical consequences of Santorum's beliefs.


Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (UaxA0)

182 Rick Santorum: Driving Voters Back to Romney and Gingrich 2012!!!

Posted by: davidinvirginia at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (cPJUK)

183 I find it ironic that libertarians trumpet the Founders, while despising the Founders' ideology.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (+inic)

184 "The answer to left wing social engineering isn't right wing social engineering, though."

you need a method to dismantle rube goldberg contraptions

Posted by: newrouter at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (xD4bD)

185 Posted by: McLovin at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (j0IcY)
Santorum would get his ass kicked when he lectures them for having mistresses and illegitmate children. the Founding Fathers were awesome and all but don't put blinders on and say they were perfect christian men

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:05 PM (yAor6)

186 Go dig up some of the stuff Romney said at HIS church and get back to me.

Santorum didn't say it at his church, he said it on the campaign trail, at a campaign event.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 21, 2012 01:05 PM (SY2Kh)

187 >>>"George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the
Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of
America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential
pillars of civil society."

What about the moral duty to leave other people's shit alone?

Posted by: Phinn at February 21, 2012 01:05 PM (KNtHw)

188 This is really strange. I don't see anything about Santorum wanting to force his morality on the country. I think the "worst" he can do is sign laws defunding Planned Parenthood and revoking funding for abortions in other countries--that was one of the first things Obama did when he took office--Mexico City policy or something.

He can't/won't ban gay marriage, he can't/won't ban abortion and he can't/won't ban contraceptives.

What is the bid deal here?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:05 PM (zLeKL)

189 Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (+inic)
who the fuck made you speak for this Liberterian? I'm Liberterian and a proud christian

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:06 PM (yAor6)

190 Everyone raise your hands if you believe the Founders were intellectually incapable of enunciating "Rick Santorum's hectoring bullshit" instead of "happiness."

Yeah, Rick, if you are going to put words in someone's mouth, make sure they are dumber than you.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 21, 2012 01:06 PM (7utQ2)

191 "something deeper than the agitation of a troubled and frothy surface."
The Regular Guy at February 21, 2012 01:01 PM (qHCyt)


I see what you did there.

Posted by: Xander Crews at February 21, 2012 01:06 PM (bzur9)

192 The self-destruction of Santorum has begun.

Plunge in poll support to follow shortly. Romney is the luckiest candidate alive. Every one of his opponents self-immolates

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at February 21, 2012 01:06 PM (uVlA4)

193 The Four Candidates Of The Apocalypse.

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 21, 2012 01:06 PM (mP3uM)

194 The best way to fight Satan is bare knuckle, in your face brawling. How can he, with any shred of decency and honor,use all of the tools at his disposal when confronted head on, man to ma... er, uh man to incredibly powerful spritual entity?
Come on, are you with me or not?

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 21, 2012 01:06 PM (gMONh)

195 He can't/won't ban gay marriage, he can't/won't ban abortion and he can't/won't ban contraceptives.

What is the bid deal here?
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:05 PM (zLeKL)

Perceptions and appearances.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (i6RpT)

196 The republican party is dead to me.

Sorry for my hiatus fellow morons, but this shit is just too depressing to embrace.

Posted by: Cajun Carrot at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (zHl9z)

197 IIRC - The "pursuit of happiness" was originally intended to be the "pursuit of property" but was changed to gain broader support.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (sOx93)

198
>>>whatever it takes to stop Romney,screw the consequences don't ya know?

Yeah, my feelings on Romney are known. I've made them clear, but I refuse to jump onto the monthly Not Romney bandwagon simply because that candidate is Not Romney.

As I stated above. I wanted Gary Johnson before Perry got in, then when Perry got in I was all for Perry. I also would have been fine with Pawlenty or even Bachmann.
I couldn't get on the Cain bandwagon because it was clear that he was on a book tour and I can't get on the Santorum or Gingrich bandwagon because they are simply awful candidates.
Romney sucks, but he sucks less than the other three at this point.
I've made peace with that. I pulled the lever for McCain in 2008, something I told myself I would never be able to do, but I didit.
After experiencing four years of Obama, I will gladly pull it for Romney.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (wuv1c)

199 ...nor did millions of our grandparents go all around the world to defeat fascism and communism so some selfish douche bags could spend their days playing Xbox, smoking weed, masturbating to internet porn, and blogging about what "true conservatism" is.
***
What are you trying to say??***cough***cough***pass the bong***cough***cough***....I don't get it, whats teh problem??

Posted by: dananjcon at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (8ieXv)

200 Love Santorum. Obamabots : some Americans have some dignity!

Posted by: A.Men at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (0TPdo)

201 @ 189 who the fuck made you speak for this Liberterian? I'm Liberterian and a proud christian


The previous 20 years of observing what bilious retards most libertarians really are, that's who.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (+inic)

202 179
I'd just like to point out that all of the, you know, founding fathers
were quite religious, and made reference to the creator pretty much all
the time.

If you transported ace and Santorum back in time to the
founding I'm pretty sure ace would have had the shit kicked out of him
by Hamilton or Hancock.


Posted by: McLovin at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (j0IcY)

--I dunno. Several of them doubted the divinity of Jesus, and Thomas Paine for one was surely a true atheist. Most if not all, though, did pay due respect to the role of churches in stabilizing a free society.

Posted by: logprof at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (dnflv)

203 What is the bid deal here? Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:05 PM (zLeKL)
4 more years of Obama

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:08 PM (yAor6)

204 Santorum's worst problem? He's undisciplined.

He keeps serving up more for his enemies to use against him.
Posted by: nickless at February 21, 2012 01:04 PM (MMC8r)

*****

Yes...I guess he should stop showing up at congregations, even though that is a big percentage of his base.

Democrats campaign at black churches all the time, and speak of certain values that dovetail nicely with-

communitarianism.

And, that's okay because it's Dan Rather approved.

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:08 PM (r2PLg)

205 He can't/won't ban gay marriage, he can't/won't ban abortion and he can't/won't ban contraceptives.



The point is that he absolutely would ban at least gay marriage and abortion if he could. You are considering particulars while others of us are looking at his overall stance towards the proper role of government. It is irrelevant to me whether I agree with the choices as to how he would exercise such power. The point is that Santorum is comfortable with a far stronger role for government than I am.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 21, 2012 01:08 PM (Gk3SS)

206 Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose"..

Posted by: Janis Joplen, Kinda glad I'm dead right about now. at February 21, 2012 01:08 PM (gCa4h)

207 Happiness in the 18th century was living til 40.

That explains why I'm 41 and pissed off.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at February 21, 2012 01:08 PM (GBXon)

208 How did we end up with this guy? seriously!

Posted by: real joe at February 21, 2012 01:08 PM (r9S4b)

209 Perceptions and appearances.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (i6RpT)
-----
I see a palpable fear that he will somehow turn America into a theocracy.

If people don't like Santorum because he says this stuff and it hurts his campaign, well isn't that a good thing for the other guys?

Where's all this stress coming from? Besides, what did he say that was so wrong?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:09 PM (zLeKL)

210 What's going on at BYU should make folks more concerned:: "Today’s Lady News: BYU Jerk Slut-Shames Fellow Student For Her Dress On Valentine’s Day"

"I don’t have any problem with a school having a dress code for both genders. But I do have a problem with people policing the way other women dress in a shameful and punishing way. You know, like in Afghanistan or at the CPAC conference. [The Daily What]" http://tinyurl.com/7pcwh5q

"BYU suspends star athlete for having pre-marital sex" http://tinyurl.com/6lvuskk

"Romney attended Stanford University
for one year and then moved to France to serve as a Mormon missionary
for 30 months. When he returned to the USA, Ann had started attending Brigham Young University
and Romney decided to join her there. He graduated from BYU in 1971,
where he studied English and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree"
http://tinyurl.com/7r7hrqd
Mitt and Ann Romney--Portrayed by Sister Romney as
Struggling, Just-Getting-By, Stock-Selling Students at BYU: How Tough It
Was, Ye Know Not; How Tight It Was, Ye Know Not . . . http://tinyurl.com/82ttufb

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 01:09 PM (oZfic)

211 Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (+inic)
pot calling the kettle..

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:09 PM (yAor6)

212

He can't/won't ban gay marriage, he can't/won't ban abortion and he can't/won't ban contraceptives.



What is the bid deal here?



It's making some people feel very defensive about their lifestyle choices, Joffen.

And in this lovely little self-esteem age of shame-free depravity, we just can't have that,, goddamnit.

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:09 PM (UaxA0)

213 The founders intended for the STATES to be able to enact their own moral legislation, including their own official state churches. The founders quite clearly intended for the FEDERAL gov't to stay out of it, and leave the moral issues to the states (hence the "Congress shall make no law" instead of "There shall be no law").


Unfortunately, in Santorum land, "national moral enterprise" is the source of the long elusive federal police power,authorizing the federal gov't to trump state laws whenever doing so is necessary to protect "morality." So far, Santorum only had power to do it with Schiavo, but he has already stated he believes the feds have such power on matters of drugs, gambling, prostitution, marriage, mortgages, and so on.

Posted by: wooga at February 21, 2012 01:09 PM (vjyZP)

214 Huusker,

The notion that happiness and virtue go hand in hand goes all the way back to Socrates and Plato. Of course, in the Republic, Plato uses that to advocate a totalitarian police state.

Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (6VB4r)

215 The point is not to be right. The point is to get elected and stop Obama.

You might have the right theology. But if only 30% agree and the other 70% think you sound crazy ... you aren't going to be President if you keep ranting about satan.

If Santorum wants to save our souls he's in the wrong profession.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (ZPrif)

216 205
The point is that Santorum is
comfortable with a far stronger role for government than I am.



Great. Well, then, get ready to nuzzle Obama's man flange for the next four years.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (34fpm)

217 Posted by: real joe at February 21, 2012 01:08 PM (r9S4b)
1. good canididates won't run
2. the one good one got in drugged
3. Romney Derangment Syndrome

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (yAor6)

218 @185

They were far from perfect but I'm not the one getting my panties in a bunch when Rick Santorum expounds on the meaning of happiness vis-a-vis what the founders thought of the same.


Posted by: McLovin at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (j0IcY)

219 @ 188 This is really strange. I don't see anything about Santorum wanting to force his morality on the country.


Oh noes! Rick Santorum thinks self-control is more conducive to long term liberty than a lack of self-control! What a gaywad!

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (+inic)

220 Ace, if you want libertarianism then Luap Nor is your candidate. Because that's what libertarianism is. And, as Luap Nor has demonstrated, it is in many ways just as bad as liberalism. Conservatism is not an "anything goes" ideology. It has a strong respect for tradition and feels that tradition should not be torn down just because some secular assholes whines about it. That's what Santorum's point is.

Posted by: Chris at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (fsFpl)

221 What, now you're twisting everything I say as if I am so opposed to Satan that I plan on getting the GOP nomination just to shpow how easy it is for Satan to clobber me in the general election. As if I am only saying all of this "kooky" stuffsoI can say, "See, told you so".
Come on people, wake up! You think I am thatstupid? Gee whiz. I am at war here, and I need to do what it takes. If that means I am making myself unelectable, then so be it. Proves I am right.Get it now?

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (gMONh)

222 Link failed. Here's Urban Dictionary translation:

1. Hasa Diga Eebowai

An Ugandan phrase, translated literally into English as "F*ck you, God!" Found in the Trey Parker / Matt Stone 2011 musical "The Book of Mormon."

"There isn't enough food to eat / Hasa Diga Eebowai
People are starving in the street / Hasa Diga Eebowai"

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (a5ljo)

223 "What are you, a theocrat? Don't you know that "pursuit of happiness" was talking about the constitutional right to gay sex?"

And you fail to grasp the distinction between a "right" and an enumerated power of government.

No worries, liberals make that mistake all the fucking time.

Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (6VB4r)

224
>>I find it ironic that libertarians trumpet the Founders, while despising the Founders' ideology.
First, the Founders weren't a monolith. Actually, Samuel Adams was the only one who would be considered a libertarian. The rest varied on their beliefs. Some like John Adams were closer to a strong central government, while others like Jefferson wanted something closer to anarchy or minarchy.
Some were protestent, some deists and some atheists(although they wouldn't have said it outright at the time as it was socially unacceptable)
The idea that they were all feverant Evangelical christians is revisionist. The vast majority were religious in one fashion or another, sure, but the idea that they wanted to create a religious state is disproven by the actual document they created to guide this nation, the constitution.
It provides for the free practice of religion or non practice of religion. That says it all right there. Did they probably want most people to be moral and religious? Sure. But it wasn't required.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (wuv1c)

225 If Santorum wants to save our souls he's in the wrong profession.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (ZPrif)
+1

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (yAor6)

226
I don't understand how people get so Hot about Michelle Obama's annoying intrusions into the health sphere but then say "Santorum's intrusions into the moral health sphere are awesome."

Social conservatives join libertarians in their annoyance at Michelle Obama and others forthe way food, your feelings about diversity, the types of lightbulbs you buy, have all become politicized. But social conservatives are annoyed at them for a different reason than libertarians. Social cons don't agree with the new morality the left has created that underlies all these new restrictions. Libertarians, however,don't like any external morality imposed on them.
(That's why I'm a federalist and rooted for Perry. The way for us all to get along is to let Nevada have prostitutes, gambling and pot and let Utah go in the other direction and have the federal government worried about defense.)

Posted by: Matt at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (90w0O)

227 I'llbeat Satan with my incredible foresight. He doesn't stand a chance.

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (gMONh)

228 After experiencing four years of Obama, I will gladly pull it for Romney.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:07 PM (wuv1c)

I don't know about gladly, but I'll sure do the same. ABO!

Posted by: davidinvirginia at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (cPJUK)

229 I'm trying to decide what I like most about Santorum. Is it his pro-union featherbedding? His love for big new entitlements? His fringey moral hectoring? It's so hard to choose!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (+lsX1)

230 "However, I will not vote third party in this election. I will pull the lever for the Republican candidate."
Sounds like:
"However, I will not proceed orderly to the life boat. I will organise these deck chairs, instead."

Posted by: Ann d'Mestik at February 21, 2012 01:12 PM (jmzyF)

231 I agree with everybody here...

it really sucks!

The problem is there is a double standard-one for Republicans and one for Democrats.

Who are the standard makers?

The damn Liberal media.

We essentially have to play this game with the Liberal media playing the role of self appointed refs.

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:12 PM (r2PLg)

232 Santorum: Making the Pope look like he's not a catholic 2012.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 21, 2012 01:12 PM (et2m1)

233 Why is Satan more popular than me? I just don't get it.

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 21, 2012 01:12 PM (gMONh)

234 He hates libertarians as much as Zero does. Such a hard decision. Oh wait, ones a marxist. Nevermind.

Posted by: Jimmah at February 21, 2012 01:12 PM (845uI)

235 Posted by: McLovin at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (j0IcY)
actually i'm pretty calm about the fact that if Santorum is the nominee no one can blame me when he loses because I will vote for him and like McCain I can say "told you so" when I think back about warning hes unelectable

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:13 PM (yAor6)

236 The point is that Santorum is comfortable with a far stronger role for government than I am.

As opposed to Romney? As opposed to Obama? I'd be okay if a bill passed Congress banning abortion. You know why? It will never fucking happen!

If he said he was against gay marriage, fine. So did Obama. If he said he doesn't support abortion, well name one GOP candidate who does?

This is absurd.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:13 PM (zLeKL)

237 Dick, meet bottom of shoe.

Posted by: Cast Iron at February 21, 2012 01:13 PM (EL+OC)

238 Rick obviously believes that bringing religion into national politics is a great idea. I can think of no issue that gets people dander up quicker than talking about religion and/or moral issues. Even among families discussing these matters can lead to shouting matches and rancor. I really am not seeing how this is a winning strategy. Even if Santorum is right it doesn't matter. I can tell you that *most* of the public and probably the vast majority of the voters that are in play this fall are not with him on these matters, at least not to the extent he is.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 21, 2012 01:13 PM (9zzk+)

239 Thomas Paine for one was surely a true atheist
***
Didn't he go on to pimp the French Revolution too?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 21, 2012 01:13 PM (3aXbg)

240 My pursuit of happiness consists of impersonating decorated veterans to glorify myself.

You say I can't do that?

Fascists.

Posted by: Average Joe at February 21, 2012 01:14 PM (EMrMF)

241 the types of lightbulbs you buy

You know the Republican Congressman that backed the light bulb ban...his name is-

Upton.

Kate Upton's uncle.

He's pretty Conservative, pro-gun but he went goofy on the damn light bulbs...

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:14 PM (r2PLg)

242 Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:11 PM (wuv1c)
Ben, you just administered a "PWNED"

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:14 PM (yAor6)

243 How to resolve the crux of the issue - http://tinyurl.com/7n78wxf

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:14 PM (+inic)

244

The point is that he absolutely would ban at least gay marriage and abortion if he could.

Good, so would I. I'm sick of having the Left's morality shoved down my throat and then having the fuckwits in here throw conniption fits when anyone tries to fight back against it.

Please re-read the definition of "conservative," the writings of someone besides Hayek, like Russell Kirk, or Reinhold Niebuhr, you know, actual Conservative philosophers.

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:14 PM (UaxA0)

245 Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 01:09 PM (oZfic)

It's a private university. I go to BYU-Idaho and there are extreme conservative idiots here that wants even more extreme rules. We've had our own controversy where some girl was wearing skinny jeans and they wouldn't let her take the test. Turns out skinny jeans wasn't against the rules and the test administrators was making up the rules as they went along. Other dumb ideas have come up like requiring that the faculty of the school always wear their Sunday's best off the job too.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (et2m1)

246 #154 Murder, theft, rape - the big stuff we all think should be against the law all goes back to morality, if not a specific religious sect. So I don't think "you can't legislate morality" is a strong argument.
[BR]
So ordinarymurder, theft, and rape are FEDERAL crimes now? See, "legislating morality" is fine for the STATES to do, although libertarians aren't particularly happy about it. But not the FEDS. So social cons, feel free to legislate morality in your own state. The problem is that social cons like Santorum disregard the traditional concept that "the federal gov't is one of limited, enumerated powers" -- and they do so on the grounds that the left is doing it too, so why not the right...

Posted by: wooga at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (vjyZP)

247 After experiencing four years of Obama, I will gladly pull it for Romney.
***
Don't worry, I'll only put the big government tip in.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (3aXbg)

248 Glad I'm in Texas and can imbibe the 4 Loko.

I need it.

Posted by: logprof at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (dnflv)

249 Can we please stop using Terry Shiavo as an example of federal government overreach. A single judge gave a death sentence to an innocent woman, and there wasn't a damn thing anyone in the country could do do stop it. It is sb example of judicial overreach, not big government.

Posted by: Lauren at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (/E6lO)

250 "No people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders." - Samuel Adams

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (+GTBC)

251 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (8y9MW)

252 Where's all this stress coming from? Besides, what did he say that was so wrong?
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:09 PM (zLeKL)

It is taking the focus off the best issue we have: obama is ruining this country. Anything that takes the focus off that is bad, berry berry bad.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (i6RpT)

253 No fair. Satan gets to tempt Americans with freedom to pursue pleasure and stuff. Don't you people believe inBehaving Your Way Into Heaven like most reasonable Christians?

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (gMONh)

254
The Kudlow Report
@TheKudlowReport



(More) @Larry_Kudlow reports: New Romney tax plan will help small biz owners. Across-the-board w/ supply-side incentives. (via larry's twitter feed)
Larry is a big mittens supporter and he has been complaining that mittens has had an unacceptable economic plan from the beginning. Guess Mittens is trying to deflect from stuff like this: "Luxury Hotels Of The Romney CampaignAll of these hotels appear under "TRAVEL: LODGING" in Mitt Romney's January 2012 campaign finance report.

(Source: http://thkpr.gs/ySq0SJ)" http://tinyurl.com/6ov3gvd (batchelor and company had a good laugh about this last night and they have always appeared to be in the mittens camp)

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (oZfic)

255 The moral thing for Rick Santorum to do would be to lead an honest conversation about THE issue of the day, which is the impending collapse of middle-class entitlements, and the resulting chaos.

Posted by: Spike at February 21, 2012 01:15 PM (wtnmC)

256 My problem is nothing to do with what Santorum said.

It's that talking like this makes him unelectable, but right now he's in the lead to get the nomination.

The #1 priority is to beat Obama. Let's save defeating Satan until after the election.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:16 PM (ZPrif)

257 And you fail to grasp the distinction between a "right" and an enumerated power of government.


No ways dude! There's a genuine constitutional right to gay sex, right there in the Constitution! Harry Browne told me so.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:16 PM (+inic)

258
>>>"However, I will not proceed orderly to the life boat. I will organise these deck chairs, instead."

Maybe so, but that's the choice I've made.
I don't see Santorum or Gingrich getting us to the life boats either. I base that on their statements and voting records.

Santorum=Gingrich=Romney
They all suck in various ways. I just think one of them can win in November and that is the sole basis for my decision in the primaries given who is left..

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:16 PM (wuv1c)

259 The question absolutely is not whether or not the state is going to be promoting a religious worldview. It is already. The question is only whose religious worldview is going to get promoted?

I'm a lot more comfortable with Santorum's than the liberals'.

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 01:17 PM (WsFyX)

260 Santorum believes eternal moral issues are more important than temporal money matters. Why does Ace then jump to the conclusion that he's a fearful freedom hater?

The truth is, Obama ran as a hardcore leftist and won the primary as a result. He then tacked to the right and won the general by making moderate sounding noises. He had his base in his pocket after the primary and he won over moderates in the general.

Ace and others seem to fear a solid conservative who will excite the base. Their fear is based on the idea that conservatism will lose in the general election. This idea couldn't be more wrong. McCain style mediocrity loses in the general. Let Santorum excite the base now, and watch as the base rallies. Then we have months and months for him to win over moderates by talking up fiscal issues. He'll do it and he'll win.

Posted by: Shooter McGavin at February 21, 2012 01:17 PM (8/Edb)

261 "Good, so would I. I'm sick of having the Left's morality shoved down my
throat and then having the fuckwits in here throw conniption fits when
anyone tries to fight back against it."

It must be nice to so freely admit to being a child whose politics is not based on principles but on anger, lashing out, and countering wrongs with wrongs.

Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 01:17 PM (6VB4r)

262 So far every candidate has had a moment in the sun. Every single one except Romney has managed to turn into national jokes in about a week's time. Yet people complain about Romney because he isn't exciting. Sorry guys, I'd rather vote for the only guy who didn't take his victory lap in clown shoes.

Posted by: bskb at February 21, 2012 01:17 PM (HEatA)

263 It is taking the focus off the best issue we have: obama is ruining this country. Anything that takes the focus off that is bad, berry berry bad.

I suppose. In any case, we all have to choose between big government conservatives. It really, really sucks.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:18 PM (zLeKL)

264 No, Mr. Santorum. They said "Pursuit of Happiness" because they were already plagarizing heavily from one John Locke (I think that's right) and they didn't want it to be quite so glaringly obvious.

It was originally an actual quote: "Life, Liberty, and Property."

SMOD 2012.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:18 PM (8y9MW)

265 You know that feeling you get when the manager signals for the reliever to come in, and he calls on the pitcher you know will blow the game?

As a Mets fan, Santorum to me is the political equivalent of Aaron Heilman. No matter how big a lead or how weak a lineup he was facing, you just KNEW he was going to blow it.

For fans of other baseball teams, replace Heilman with whomever on your team was or is notorious for blown saves

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:18 PM (Y+DPZ)

266 Unemployment just hit 9%!

Should be a bad news day for Obama.

But no, Santorum challenges Satan to a fistfight, so we're talking about that instead.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:18 PM (ZPrif)

267 Hey, how's it going? How's Reagan II going so far? You're welcome, by the way.

Posted by: Politically Astute Third Party Conservative Voters From 2008 at February 21, 2012 01:18 PM (gMONh)

268 Since "The Pursuit of Happiness" does not mean with govt support or govt protection from consequences which is what the govt is doing now. It isn't about property or pleasure it may be to you but not to another. So I don't see the evil in what he said. Talking at a church about being moral isn't a sin.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 21, 2012 01:18 PM (tf9Ne)

269 Ace is right. It's so much better for the Republican party when Romney talks his petissues like global warming and raising the minimum wage.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 21, 2012 01:19 PM (aPkU9)

270 Yes...I guess he should stop showing up at congregations, even though that is a big percentage of his base. Democrats campaign at black churches all the time, and speak of certain values that dovetail nicely with- communitarianism. And, that's okay because it's Dan Rather approved.
Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:08 PM (r2PLg)


No it's not ok, that's why we are not deomcrats. We try not to see things in the constitution that aren't there.

Posted by: robtr at February 21, 2012 01:19 PM (MtwBb)

271 As opposed to Romney? As opposed to Obama?

Joffen, are you actually trying to miss the point of what I and others are saying or is it simply beyond your capacity to understand that we have a very clear and distinct disagreement with how Santorum approaches the role of the government vis a vis the individual? Because you seem to be ignoring the fact that a candidate's base philosophy as to how a government should function is the single most important piece of information in determining whether that candidate should receive support.


As far as your repeated but but but he can't do that! go ask the GM bond holders exactly how far that gets you.


You think this is absurd. I don't. Guess what, that's why there are all kinds of different philosophical approaches to governance.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 21, 2012 01:19 PM (Gk3SS)

272 205 The point is that he absolutely would ban at least gay marriage and abortion if he could. You are considering particulars while others of us are looking at his overall stance towards the proper role of government. It is irrelevant to me whether I agree with the choices as to how he would exercise such power. The point is that Santorum is comfortable with a far stronger role for government than I am.

Did I miss something? Did Mitt Romney suddenly become libertarian on gay marriage or abortion rights? There hasn't been a Republican candidate ever who has supported either gay marriage or abortion, and there isn't one now. So what exactly is the libertarian complaint about Santorum?

We're getting dangerously close to the liberal media double standard regarding religion and morality -- they'll give Obama a pass on what his minister says, or what he says at the National Prayer Breakfast ("Jesus wants me to raise taxes on the 1%"), or on his opposition to gay marriage, because they know he's a hypocrite who doesn't really mean it and in his heart of hearts is just as big of an unbeliever secularist as they are. But Santorum.... hey, he actually believes this stuff, so he's scary! I'm pretty sure some of you guys are giving Romney a pass because you're convinced that he doesn't really believe anything either. So the Mormon Church's doctrines (for instance, the "Law of Chastity") don't matter.


Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 21, 2012 01:19 PM (qHCyt)

273 "Santorum believes eternal moral issues are more important than temporal
money matters. Why does Ace then jump to the conclusion that he's a
fearful freedom hater?"

Because he makes it very clear that he thinks the State should be in the business of promoting and enforcing those "eternal moral issues".

Also, to dismiss our current situation as "temporal money matter"...what the fuck is wrong with you? Go ahead an vote for God's kindgom on Earth. I'm more concerning with a repeat of the Great Depression.

Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 01:20 PM (6VB4r)

274 Is this guy brain dead or what, maybe we can draft a cow or something at the convention to run against the JEF.

Posted by: Killerdog at February 21, 2012 01:20 PM (yc1qZ)

275
>>The moral thing for Rick Santorum to do would be to lead an honest conversation about THE issue of the day<<

I think he did that when he talked about the moral peril of married couples using birth control. It's pretty important for a presidential candidate to tackle that issue head-on.

Santorum '12
Let me put my morals in you

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 21, 2012 01:20 PM (+lsX1)

276 We're getting dangerously close to the liberal media double standard regarding religion and morality

Dangerously close? Hell, the line disappeared into the distance behind us some time ago.

Posted by: GMan at February 21, 2012 01:21 PM (sxq57)

277

Santorum challenges Satan to a fistfight,


In 200-fucking-8

Drudge is such a dipshit. What, Drudge, RS making you feel bad about sodomy again?

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:21 PM (UaxA0)

278 There seems a general ignorance here that conservativism is equal parts Washington and Jefferson, John Adams and Madison.

You simply can't have a free society without a moral one - interestingly either alone end up degenerating into a leftist morass.

We currently have neither.

Santorum is addressing both traditions in what he has to say, and it can't be understated that he is exactly correct.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 21, 2012 01:21 PM (3aXbg)

279 Mad gay, yo!

I'm a lot more comfortable with Santorum than you are, but this reminds me too much of Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech. He really needs to dial this down if he wants to compete.

Posted by: John at February 21, 2012 01:21 PM (4usZ0)

280 It's so much better for the Republican party when Romney talks his petissues like global warming and raising the minimum wage.

And talking up Labor Unions and Keyensian Economics.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:21 PM (8y9MW)

281 What is this "base" that's all excited about Santorum? The five percent of general election voters who don't care about economics but want to make sure we never see Katy Perry's cleavage again?

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:21 PM (Y+DPZ)

282 If Santorum wants to save our souls he's in the wrong profession.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:10 PM (ZPrif)

No he just recognized that once more than half the population no longer firmly believes:

The merits of honest work, that there is no moral hazard to living on the dole and having others pay for it.

In having a traditional family.

In the inherent merits of treating everyone honestly and fairly.

:We might as well pack it up because we can't save our society.


On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life

(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)

Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."



In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,

By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;

But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 21, 2012 01:21 PM (0q2P7)

283 Someone get Ace a paper bag: he's about to hyperventilate again.

Posted by: diogenes at February 21, 2012 01:22 PM (ubduJ)

284 Obama Super PAC to run ads in MI -- Against Romney... Developing...

Great. Obama taking a second look at Santorum and going "Whoa, just play the Jefferson card (separation of church and state) and I'll win".

Especially with Santorum trying to be Jesus fighting to keep Satan from the United States of America. What's next? Santorum will add Satan to the terrorist watch list and his devils with red tails and pitchforks?

Posted by: Kaitian at February 21, 2012 01:22 PM (et2m1)

285 Talking at a church about being moral isn't a sin.

********

It is *if* you're a Republican!

Posted by: Chris Matthews! at February 21, 2012 01:23 PM (r2PLg)

286
>>You simply can't have a free society without a moral one - interestingly either alone end up degenerating into a leftist morass.


Do you accept the fact that we non-religious people can be moral?

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:23 PM (wuv1c)

287 Yeah, good luck, libertarians, winning without socons.

Your repudiation of fusionism and the three-legged stool are handing O'Bumbles another four years.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at February 21, 2012 01:23 PM (34fpm)

288 Someone get Ace a paper bag: he's about to hyperventilate again.
Posted by: diogenes at February 21, 2012 01:22 PM (ubduJ)

He's not the only one. We can beat this SOB in the White House, but we seem to be going out of our way to fucking it up. And we can't afford to fuck it up.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 21, 2012 01:23 PM (i6RpT)

289 Do the Santorum supporters here actually think that his bringing up religious issues on the campaign trail is going to win the November election?

I don't. Ace doesn't either, I'd bet. I want him to shut up about it and talk about the economy first, middle and last. That's the way to beat Obama.

Talk about religion; lose independent votes. Talk about economy; gain independent votes.

Posted by: Jason M at February 21, 2012 01:23 PM (R8jeE)

290 "[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." - Samuel Adams

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 01:23 PM (+GTBC)

291 Santorum is very close to the founders, especially Washington's philosophy of what it takes to remain a free nation.


We should have learned by now that hedonism only results in tyranny/socialism. Look around. What we have now is the result of having no moral guardrails.

Posted by: Soona at February 21, 2012 01:24 PM (SiK35)

292 I don't know. He's asserting that the constitution gives so many powers to the people because we are to be moral and pursue moral happiness.

I would suggest that the constitution limits government because people are not moral, and therefore should not hold power over others through the state.

Posted by: MJ at February 21, 2012 01:24 PM (/x4oj)

293 Breaking News! Santorum just vowed to use his mighty un-condomed cock to buttfuck Satan to death.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:24 PM (ZPrif)

294 @ 224 First, the Founders weren't a monolith. Actually, Samuel Adams was the only one who would be considered a libertarian. The rest varied on their beliefs.


Well look at the rocket surgery knowledge on Ben! By gum, it's like taking 7th grade civics all over again with you.

Fact is - NONE of the Founders would have been libertarians by the generally used sense of the term today. NONE of them. While there was some variance between them, there were simply basic, ideological premises that they accepted and which were common to all of them, that today's libertarians simply do not share.

Some like John Adams were closer to a strong central government, while others like Jefferson wanted something closer to anarchy or minarchy.


Brilliant analysis, Ben. Simplistic and somewhat incorrect, but brilliant nevertheless.

Some were protestent, some deists and some atheists(although they wouldn't have said it outright at the time as it was socially unacceptable)The idea that they were all feverant Evangelical christians is revisionist. The vast majority were religious in one fashion or another, sure, but the idea that they wanted to create a religious state is disproven by the actual document they created to guide this nation, the constitution.


Outside of a few Reconstructionists, perhaps,I can't think of anyone who actually wants America to be a "religious state," thinks that it was intended to be one, or who thinks that all the Founders were orthodox Christians. Your argument is a straw man, one which originates in the typically libertarian overreaction to hearing people assert that America was founded upon a Judeo-Christian heritage. Libertarians hear that and think people are saying "the Founders wanted a theocracy, Waaaaah!"


It provides for the free practice of religion or non practice of religion. That says it all right there. Did they probably want most people to be moral and religious? Sure. But it wasn't required.


No kidding? Really? Wow, that's news to me, except for the fact that I've been studying this stuff for a decade now, especially the part about how my own Baptist forefathers are basically the REASON we even have freedom of religion, rather than the mere toleration with a notional state church that many of the Founders would have settled for.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:24 PM (+inic)

295 Do you accept the fact that we non-religious people can be moral?
***
As individuals? Yes.

A non-religious society? No.

In fact the materialist reason for religion is to allow the formation of a society in the first place

Posted by: 18-1 at February 21, 2012 01:24 PM (3aXbg)

296 In any case, we all have to choose between big government conservatives.

You mean 'big government Republicans', of course. On account of not having a single conservative in the pool at the moment.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at February 21, 2012 01:24 PM (GBXon)

297 286 Do you accept the fact that we non-religious people can be moral?



Ultimately, no.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at February 21, 2012 01:24 PM (34fpm)

298 >>>Do you accept the fact that we non-religious people can be moral?

Absolutely. Though I would rather you get your morals from someplace more...permanent, I'll take what I can get, and yes non-religious people *can* be moral.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 21, 2012 01:25 PM (0q2P7)

299

How long have I been dead? Assholes.

Posted by: Hitch at February 21, 2012 01:25 PM (/x4oj)

300

Democrats campaign at black churches all the time, and speak of certain values that dovetail nicely with- communitarianism.

what the Dems advocate is about as far from communitarianism as one can get.





Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:25 PM (UaxA0)

301 So, President Santorum believes in big government and government interfering in people's lives, and the MSM is hostile to Republican presidents. There just may be an upside here.

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (2VCZA)

302 "In fact the materialist reason for religion is to allow the formation of a society in the first place"

It sounds like you're admitting that religion is a shame that must be upheld for social functions.


Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (6VB4r)

303 @260. OMG, electoral common sense! You mean getting the base of your party solidly behind you and THEN broadening your appeal to the middle of the electorate during the general election actually works? Shocker!

You know, like every other elected president in modern American history did?

Thank you, sir, for grasping what Santorum is actually doing. Most of the rest here seem to only grasp what the MSM want them to grasp about what he's doing.

Perhaps that's why he's the guy who has actually won elections for 20 years and is leading in the polls at this late stage. You know, because he is actually a professional politician for his freaking living, rather than one who plays one anonymously on a blog.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (dcoFe)

304 @ 286 Do you accept the fact that we non-religious people can be moral?


Sure - when you're cherry-picking large portions of Judeo-Christian morality.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (+inic)

305 Santorum is not disparaging freedom. He's not afraid of freedom. He wants freedom, and he understands what is necessary to have freedom a lot better than most libertarians do.

He's not talking about having the government enforce all his moral standards. He's talking about the need to stop the statists from destroying our moral standards in their quest to steal our freedom.

His is a profoundly pro-freedom message. The fact that it is viewed by anyone calling themselves a conservative as objectionable shows just how far conservatism has fallen, and why this country is in the state it's in.

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (WsFyX)

306 If Santorum is the nominee, then we'll all know the feeling that Redskins fans get when Rex Grossman trots out to the huddle

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (Y+DPZ)

307
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." - Samuel Adams

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (+GTBC)

308 I think churches are one of the few places that people still get together these days....


Republicans aren't allowed to go there, only Democrats.

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (r2PLg)

309

Do you accept the fact that we non-religious people can be moral?


Not in the aggregate, no.

Tell me how the irreligious in the hood are doing . . .

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:27 PM (UaxA0)

310 If X-Box, internet porn, and blogging about "conservative" issues are NOT included in the pursuit of happiness--and the very belief that they are precludes one from being a true conservative--then will someone please enumerate a list of acceptable activities which I, an adult citizen of the United States and Marine Corps veteran, may pursue in my free time?
See, that is the problem with this kind of hectoring, not the ridiculous accusation that it makes people feel uncomfortable about their lifestyle choices. Why should Ace, for example, feel even a second's worth of discomfort about his choices? Or me? Or any of you? The problem is that once you decide that certain harmless, non-violent activities--X-Box, internet porn, for example, as a poster above angrily denounced--are "immoral" and therefore out of the realm of the Constitutional protection of the "pursuit of happiness," there is only one more logical step, and that is to ban those activities, and to actively mandate their opposites.
I believe that that is Ace's point, and I believe that is the objection many have to Santorum.

Posted by: MikeinAmman at February 21, 2012 01:27 PM (fc76N)

311 What Rick meant by "my will" is that I granted you rights that no government or man can take away from you.

Please vote for me next millennium, and don't listen to the Devil's SuperPAC ads, oh and 9-9-9.

Posted by: God at February 21, 2012 01:27 PM (L2x1w)

312 The #1 priority is to beat Obama. Let's save defeating Satan until after the election.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:16 PM (ZPrif)


This.

Posted by: Cast Iron at February 21, 2012 01:27 PM (EL+OC)

313 Matt from CO, Santorum would lose about 35 states to Obama.

Posted by: rdbrewer at February 21, 2012 01:27 PM (Iyg03)

314 "Pursuit of Happiness" was an 18th century term of art for the free enterprise system. It has no direct application to "happiness" as a concept.

It was placed in the Declaration specifically because a reference to "property" directly might be taken as a defense of slavery.

Posted by: Have Blue at February 21, 2012 01:28 PM (IKTC8)

315
What Santorum has said here is not much different than what Franklin, noted Deist, said about republican government. The onus on keeping up a constitutional republic is up to the individual citizens acting in a morally upright way.<<<

Want to rethink that one? Benjamin Franklin was a bigger pussyhound than Giacomo Casanova.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 21, 2012 01:28 PM (fnB4E)

316 Romney attacks through his surrogates, trump, paul, do you actually think that people aren't seeing through this by now?

People who are ABR and don't like Santorum are going to take a second look at the very very very flawed but human, Gingrich. Maybe they'll even take a second look at Paul. Then you'll really be screaming and crying. Cause now the prospect of someone they don't know, picked by the party elites, is looming large and they are figuring out that this is the only way they can push the history making third bush on the country.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 01:28 PM (oZfic)

317 @ 262 Yet people complain about Romney because he isn't exciting.


No, we complain about Romney because he's an Obama-clone whose proven primary instrincts are to expand government power at the expense of freedom. People can whine al they want about remarks Santorum makes in front of an audience composed of his base, but the fact remains that at the end of the day, there is no such thing as SantorumCare.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:28 PM (+inic)

318 Look- this statement (if the quote is accurate, and I assume it is) is wrong. "Pursuit of Happiness" was all about "stuff." Well, at least partially about stuff.

He's more-or-less right, morally, and I believe (as many of the Founders did) that our Constitution only works for a moral society. Granted those two things: he says it, really, really badly. It's like he's completely deaf to the way people are going to take what he's saying.

Social Conservatism can certainly sell- if it's packaged as a "kicker" or "bonus" to solid Fiscal Conservatism. I think that's exactly backwards from how it actually works, but if we're talking about marketing, "how it actually works" is often only tangentially related.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:28 PM (8y9MW)

319 Can the non-religious be moral? Yeah, but it's not as common--if you're on your own recognizance, the chance of backsliding kinda multiplies quickly with nothing to reinforce it...

Which is why a fully secularized society fares so poorly. And tends to get overtaken by its more religious sectors, eventually.

The fact that you may not like that means nothing, in the end. You can't handwave human nature.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at February 21, 2012 01:28 PM (GBXon)

320 what the Dems advocate is about as far from communitarianism as one can get.

******

Awhile back they were using that term and you could easily replace what they meant by it with -"European style socialism".


Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:29 PM (r2PLg)

321 All you hand lotion and kleenex are belong to us.

Posted by: dananjcon at February 21, 2012 01:30 PM (8ieXv)

322 Rush seems to be talking about Ace now on the air

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 01:30 PM (oZfic)

323 When you have a candidate whom the Baghdad Bob Media tells you wants to imprison you for having sex, you want a Reagan who smiles and says "there you go again", not a charisma challenged nerd who starts elaborating on what sex is ok according to canon and which is "icky"

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:30 PM (Y+DPZ)

324 "we'll all know the feeling that Redskins fans get when Rex Grossman trots out to the huddle"

Except when Rex scores I don't still feel dead inside

Posted by: bill lumbergh at February 21, 2012 01:30 PM (4hkAj)

325
Just occurred to me that happy and gay were still synonymous at the time of drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

Imagine for a moment if it was instead "...the pursuit of gayness."

Boy, would we having a hell of a row, now, eh?

Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 01:30 PM (sqkOB)

326 Joffen, are you actually trying to miss the point of what I and others are saying or is it simply beyond your capacity to understand that we have a very clear and distinct disagreement with how Santorum approaches the role of the government vis a vis the individual?

No, I'm trying to understand the difference between the candidates' approaches. I also don't see where Santorum said he wants to force his morality on the country, like so many here are implying.

Because you seem to be ignoring the fact that a candidate's base philosophy as to how a government should function is the single most important piece of information in determining whether that candidate should receive support.

I agree with this 100%. I just want to know what Santorum said that's freaking everybody out. He never said he wants to ban contraception, etc.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be able to bridge the gap between what Santorum actually said and how it's being perceived.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:31 PM (zLeKL)

327 No, we complain about Romney because he's an Obama-clone whose proven primary instrincts are to expand government power at the expense of freedom. People can whine al they want about remarks Santorum makes in front of an audience composed of his base, but the fact remains that at the end of the day, there is no such thing as SantorumCare.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:28 PM (+inic)

Except for that entire Medicare Part D thing that Mandates we all go further in debt to buy drugs for seniors. Which was a National Mandate by the way, not a state one. But that's ok because Santorum is going to defend the United States from Satan.

Posted by: robtr at February 21, 2012 01:31 PM (MtwBb)

328 182 Rick Santorum: Driving Voters Back to Romney and Gingrich 2012!!!
------------------------------

That's what you want right?

I hear Santorum is KILLING the field in Texas!

Oklahoma too!

Posted by: basket case nation at February 21, 2012 01:31 PM (Wa/0G)

329 "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 01:31 PM (+GTBC)

330
So two people could lead the exact same life and because one doesn't profess a religion, that person's life isn't moral. Ok, got it.

Posted by: MJ at February 21, 2012 01:32 PM (/x4oj)

331
The problem is that once you decide that certain harmless, non-violent
activities--X-Box, internet porn, for example, as a poster above angrily
denounced--are "immoral" and therefore out of the realm of the
Constitutional protection of the "pursuit of happiness," there is only
one more logical step, and that is to ban those activities, and to
actively mandate their opposites.


That's the problem: nothing of the sort will ever happen. He's just making you feel bad. Boo fucking hoo.

(and I may be guilty of some or all of the above distractions)

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:32 PM (UaxA0)

332 Santorum '12: Because Somewhere, Somebody Is Enjoying Himself.

Posted by: joncelli, pre-denounced for your convenience at February 21, 2012 01:32 PM (RD7QR)

333
kdabear,
"If Santorum is the nominee, then we'll all know the feeling that Redskins fans get when Rex Grossman trots out to the huddle"
That is genius.

Posted by: Ernie McCracken - SMODomite at February 21, 2012 01:33 PM (ZETiK)

334 I agree with this 100%. I just want to know what Santorum said that's freaking everybody out. He never said he wants to ban contraception, etc. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be able to bridge the gap between what Santorum actually said and how it's being perceived.
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:31 PM (zLeKL)


If he doesn't want to do anything about it why is he bringing it up and tying it to the constitution?

Posted by: robtr at February 21, 2012 01:33 PM (MtwBb)

335 Are there past speeches of candidates Reagan, Bush 1 & II, Nixon, and other past Republican winners where they openly talked about Satan during the primary?

I'm asking cause I don't know. Did this used to be common?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:33 PM (ZPrif)

336 330


So two people could lead the exact same life and because one doesn't
profess a religion, that person's life isn't moral. Ok, got it.

Posted by: MJ at February 21, 2012 01:32 PM (/x4oj)
Most religions give you a solid dose of morality. How do those without religion get their morals?

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 01:33 PM (oZfic)

337 We have to not only think about putting up a candidate who has a halfway decent chance of not scaring the reality show watching indie voters to death and putting SCOAMF back in there, but one who won't put that gavel back in Nanny Pelosi's wrinkled claws

I see a Santorum loss in the general as one with a whole shitload of collateral damage to the House and Senate

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:34 PM (Y+DPZ)

338 Posted by: basket case nation at February 21, 2012 01:31 PM (Wa/0G)
youre handle fits perfectly for your state of mind

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:34 PM (yAor6)

339 Let's say we grant the argument that Santorum can't beat Obama. Just for the sake of argument.

That's not what Ace said, though. Ace said that Santorum's statements were not consistent with limited government. I'm saying that Santorum's perspective is necessary to limited government. How about that question? Is moral restraint necessary to limited government or not? And is it part of the leftist agenda to destroy that moral restraint? And if so, what are we going to do about that?

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 01:34 PM (WsFyX)

340 Let's nominate a conservative and let the voters decide. You know, as an experiment.

In a time of great economic stress, I think "God doesn't want you to kill your babies" will be less offensive to the middle than "I don't care about the poor."

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 21, 2012 01:34 PM (mP3uM)

341
Awhile back they were using that term and you could easily replace what they meant by it with -"European style socialism".


Then they were radically misusing the term.

Communitarianism is an philosophy of building autonomous strongly controlled small communities. Emphasis on the SMALL. Free movement between them means that no one is "oppressed"

The Amish and Mennonites are two good examples of the communitarian ethos, but the concept does not have to be religiously based.

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:34 PM (UaxA0)

342 Santorum 2012: I Will Murder Satan To Death!

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:35 PM (ZPrif)

343 "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they... did you see the rack on that chick? I'd like to churn her butter than have her make me a nice MLT."

--Ben Franklin

Posted by: MJ at February 21, 2012 01:35 PM (/x4oj)

344 So, Imp, what is the next logical step after someone decides that those activities are not protected by the Constitution--or the Declaration of Independence, as someone pointed out above--because they are not legitimately part of the "pursuit of happiness?" And as I've already said, I don't have any lifestyle choices that Rick Santorum, nor you, nor anyone else, can make me feel bad about, so that argument is a non-starter.

Posted by: MikeinAmman at February 21, 2012 01:35 PM (fc76N)

345
Ya know what might be a good strategy at this point for Romney. Tell us what you actually are for, instead of attacking everyone else on the repub side. Sure, attack Obumbles in half of your speech, but what are YOU Mitt for besides seeing Mitt be president.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 21, 2012 01:35 PM (r+9M6)

346 >>>If he doesn't want to do anything about it why is he bringing it up and tying it to the constitution?

"Just words"?

I don't think so.

Posted by: ace at February 21, 2012 01:35 PM (nj1bB)

347 Ace is correct. I will never vote for Santorum. He will wreck America as surely as Obama, and I'd rather that America suffer at the hands of a D than an R. Santorum is not a small-government conservative. He has no respect for individual freedom. He has no ideological reason to like free markets (I suspect he is social-mercantalist rather than capitalist). 'Compassionate Conservatism' is just Christian Socialism (it's a thing and it's been around since before the Waldensians -- and it's been as senseless and stupid as every other form of socialism), and I don't want a republican nanny state worrying over the condition of my soul any more than I want a democrat one. So he doesn't believe that the State is God. Big whoop, he still thinks it exists to do God's work; so the practical impact is the same: More government, less individual freedom.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at February 21, 2012 01:35 PM (jqHOY)

348
This November, people will be wondering, "Why can't I get a job?"

Will they conclude it is because...

a) fags are buggering each other in the anus
b) Obama ruined the economy
c) too much sex on television

If you think they'll say A and/or C, then you probably think Rick Santorum can get elected.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (sqkOB)

349 nothing says why I dont comment here as much as the fact curious is getting replied to seriously
*sighs*

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (yAor6)

350 Wow, Santorum's position is founds mentally rooted in eudaimian based virtue ethics as found in Aristotle, Aquinas and modern thinker such as Maritain, Gilson, MacIntyre, etc. What a moron! He doesn't buy into enlightenment notions of freedom but opts for a different view. What a shithead! He doesn't know ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!

If you don't know the philosophy, shut the fuck up. You can't merely state this is sooo obviously stupid unless you give a coherent argument for the definition of happiness and a reason why it does not consist in a life of virtuous activity. There is a rich intellectual tradition behind Santorum'a statement. This can be argued without resorting to theology. So once again, unless you can bring similar support, shut your yap.

Posted by: darii at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (HPA5g)

351 @ 327 Except for that entire Medicare Part D thing that Mandates we all go further in debt to buy drugs for seniors. Which was a National Mandate by the way, not a state one. But that's ok because Santorum is going to defend the United States from Satan.


Nobody denies that Santorum voted poorly on that. But then again, the bill doesn't have his name on it, either. And then there's also the fact that Santorum consistently got 85%+ ratings from folks ranging fromFreedom Works to taxpayerassociations to private property advocacy groups to the Republican Liberty Caucus. Mitt? Not so much.

I think the whole Mittbot argument that "RomneyCare was at the state level, and Romney has said he wouldn't do it at the national level" is a bit naive. The fact remains that Romney happily called for and obtained the socialisation of a large part of the Massachusetts economy. While he may or may not support that being done at the national level on the issue of health care, it nevertheless shows us where his instincts lie.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (+inic)

352 "Tell me how the irreligious in the hood are doing . ."

Better than they are in Pakistan.

Posted by: Jason at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (6VB4r)

353 Let's nominate a conservative and let the voters decide. You know, as an experiment.



In a time of great economic stress, I think "God doesn't want you to
kill your babies" will be less offensive to the middle than "I don't
care about the poor."

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 21, 2012 01:34 PM (mP3uM)

sadly there isn't a conservative in the race, just cocksucker #1, cocksucker #2 and cocksucker #3

Posted by: The Dude at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (M8yfa)

354 Santorum 2012: I Will Buttfuck Satan's Soul

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (ZPrif)

355 Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (sqkOB)
+1

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (yAor6)

356

past Republican winners where they openly talked about Satan during the primary?


He DIDN'T

The Satan thing was 2008

Two thousand fucking eight

Great job, Drudge.

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:37 PM (UaxA0)

357
Ben, with regard to your point:
It provides for the free practice of religion or non practice of religion. That says it all right there. Did they probably want most people to be moral and religious? Sure. But it wasn't required.

I just want to throw out that the 1st Amendment was a restriction on the federal government's power and obviously most power was left to the states that had a lot of morality-based regulation. There were established churches in some of the states that continued into the early 1800s.
(This is from wikipedia, and I haven't confirmed it elsewhere, but I do know that Connecticut and Massachusetts had some government support to religion after the Constitution was ratified:
"From 1780 Massachusetts had a system which required every man
to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members, but forbade
any law requiring that it be of any particular denomination. This was objected
to, as in practice establishing the Congregational Church, the majority
denomination, and was abolished in 1833."

"Until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of
the State legislature to be of the Protestant religion."


"the North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the
Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to
hold public office. From 1835-1876 it allowed only Christians (including
Catholics) to hold public office.")

Posted by: Matt at February 21, 2012 01:37 PM (90w0O)

358 Amusing note: The main knock about Santorum here seems to be that he can't be elected because...they're afraid he'll get elected and do certain things.

Not saying he's a great candidate, just that the thinking implies interesting things.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at February 21, 2012 01:37 PM (GBXon)

359 Are there past speeches of candidates Reagan, Bush 1 II, Nixon, and other past Republican winners where they openly talked about Satan during the primary? I'm asking cause I don't know. Did this used to be common?
Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:33 PM (ZPrif)

No they had enough sense to talk about evil instead of Satan attacking the US. The Christians in the Sudan and in Egypt that are being murdered on a daily basis might take exception to Santorums declaration that Satan has his sights set on the US.

I think Satan may be an equal opportunity evil doer.

Posted by: robtr at February 21, 2012 01:37 PM (MtwBb)

360 Santorum 2012: because I will stop your husbands from expecting a bj

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:37 PM (yAor6)

361 He may be right about the founders and their understanding of "pursuit of happiness" but I've always thought that phrase to be retarded to begin with.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 21, 2012 01:38 PM (r4wIV)

362 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Posted by: Huusker at February 21, 2012 01:38 PM (+GTBC)

363 Was having this discussion this morning with Mr. Rockmom. It's obvious to me that Santorum reeeeeeeallllly wants to talk pretty much exclusively about personal morality and Saving Teh Babiez. He is running for President only because he knows that is the best way to make sure people listen to him. Nobody read his book, he lost his Senate seat, but he HAD TO DO SOMETHING TO SAVE AMERICA or something. He doesn't have a f$^ing clue about how to actually be President or even what he would do if by some miracle he actually was elected. He doesn't care if he is a national laughingstock and makes the entire Republican Party a laughingstock along with him. He just wants a big stage to talk about the stuff he cares about.

So, he is pretty much the same as Ron Paul. Only Ron Paul wants the government to leave me alone.

Posted by: rockmom at February 21, 2012 01:38 PM (NYnoe)

364 "People who are ABR and don't like Santorum are going to take a second look at the very very very flawed but human, Gingrich."

{raises hand}

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 01:38 PM (fyHyt)

365
There are a few of my speeches/debates on this subject on FORA.tv.

Second look? Bring whiskey and cigarettes.

Posted by: Christopher Hitchens at February 21, 2012 01:38 PM (/x4oj)

366 I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be able to bridge the gap between what Santorum actually said and how it's being perceived.


Read in the aggregate. I'm paraphrasing this massively so don't even bother with the OMFG THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID bullshit. Over the course of his career, Santorum has mentioned that he believes Griswold was wrongly decided, he's mentioned that there is no reason why bestiality should be illegal if gay marriage is legal, he's made comments to the extent that there are overarching moral imperatives that would support a federal ban on gay marriage, he's been very supportive of earmarks and various unions and one of the things that kicked off this current circular firing squad is that he mentioned contraception and the like as things that were a priority to him.

Again, it doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree on an individual basis with these positions. What matters is that Santorum falls on the big government side and I'm against that.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 21, 2012 01:38 PM (Gk3SS)

367 @ 336 Most religions give you a solid dose of morality. How do those without religion get their morals?


By stealing it from religions and renaming it "ethics."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:38 PM (+inic)

368

what is the next logical step

It doesn;t matter what the next "logical" step is, Mike.

It's what is the next POSSIBLE step.

Romney passed MassCare. What is the next logical step for him to take with Obamacare?

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:39 PM (UaxA0)

369 Santorum 2012: because Glenn Beck called me the next George Washington

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:39 PM (yAor6)

370 I take issue with Santorum here, but at least he's telling you what he really thinks, instead of telling you which way the wind is blowing.

Posted by: Ken at February 21, 2012 01:39 PM (7yb9x)

371 Watch all the liberaltarians get their panties in a wad because a politician suggested in public that some things are good and some things are bad. Note, he didn't endorse banning bad things or legislating against them, or anything other than talking about them. But poor little babies' feelings still get hurt because someone in a position of authority made a moral judgement.

Awwwww.....

Make the mean man stop talking about right and wrong, Mommy! It makes me feel guilty and I don't want to feel guilty. I just want to whack my pud all day and smoke some weed in my mom's basement.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 21, 2012 01:39 PM (dcoFe)

372 @ 358 Amusing note: The main knock about Santorum here seems to be that he can't be elected because...they're afraid he'll get elected and do certain things.


Yes, there does seem to be a certain amount of wishcasting going on in these parts, don't there?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:39 PM (+inic)

373 Santorum 2012: Blowjobs are the Devil's Handmaiden

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:39 PM (ZPrif)

374
I really miss that guy who wanted to make the government "as inconsequential in our lives as possible".
.
I blame fucking Iowa. .....They gave Santorum a big win. And now we may be stuck with him. .....In which case, we lose.

Posted by: wheatie at February 21, 2012 01:39 PM (UOOK1)

375 I almost punched the TV last night when Santorum started saying, and I am paraphrasing here, that doing an amniocentesis is an excuse for doctors to recommend an abortion.

Funny, that WASN'T why Mrs. Jakeman and I had one done back when we had our second child.

This guy is giving Rs a really bad name, and it is scaring the sh!t out of me...

Posted by: jakeman at February 21, 2012 01:39 PM (96M6e)

376 Santorum is a loser in the general.

Its the economy, stupid.
All people will hear is Santorum wants to outlaw birth control and he wants a theocracy.

Posted by: Some moron with nothing interesting to say at February 21, 2012 01:40 PM (qjUnn)

377 @ 330 So two people could lead the exact same life and because one doesn't profess a religion, that person's life isn't moral. Ok, got it.


Spurious premise, since it's exceedingly unlikely that two said persons are going to lead the exact same life.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:40 PM (+inic)

378 Once again, Rick is right and Ace is wrong. However, if Ace points out that Rick is right but he really needs to avoid answering these type of questions, then Ace would be right. As it is, Rick, like Newt, is usually right, just that sometimes they should keep their mouths shut, or frame their rightness in a way that doesn't offend lovers of liberalness like the MSM and GOP establishment bloggers who only want to celebrate with Ann Coulter, the inclusiveness of Mitt Romney.

Posted by: doug at February 21, 2012 01:40 PM (gUGI6)

379 I'll vote for Santorum if he's the nominee. I just think he'll lose in a landslide.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:40 PM (ZPrif)

380 Man I hates me some 2012.

Posted by: MAJHAM at February 21, 2012 01:40 PM (+AOEo)

381
Nominate Sanotrum
Do it. Everyone who has been jumping from candidate to candidate.
Just do it. Nominate this month's Not-Romney.
He's the most conservative. He really is. SurePawlenty, Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Newt were your saviors in September, October, November, Decemeber and January, but this time, this time you've finally found the most conservative candidate.
It's not like you chose Santorum through default and process of elimination. No, it just took you six months and your fervent support of six other candidates to realize it was Santorum all along.
Praise God, we've finally found the True Conservative(TM). So what if his record is that of big spending, government intervention in peoples private lives and the market place, picking winners and losers in industry, voting year after year to increase spending and entitlements, buddying up with companies that buy his influence, his distaste of personal freedom and individual responsibility.
He's the conservative alright.
At least I'm not claiming Romney is a conservative. I'm not able reconcile myself to lying and claiming that he is. He's clearly a more moderate Republican. Someone I don't agree with politically very much, but the best shot we have at beating Obama(in my opinion).
If there was some true conservative left in the race, I would support them, but there isn't and it's amazing to listen to people contort Santorum's record to make the claim that he is conservative.
He was my senator since 1988. I know his record well.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:40 PM (wuv1c)

382 Alex, he may be on the big government side, but I think it is possible to believe, as a federalist and not a believer in big government, that Griswold was wrongly decided because the states should have the power to determine whether or not contraceptives can be regulated or prohibited.

Posted by: Matt at February 21, 2012 01:40 PM (90w0O)

383 I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be
able to bridge the gap between what Santorum actually said and how it's
being perceived.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:31 PM

It's a sound bite world, and Santorum should know better. If he doesn't then he's a disaster in the general.

Once you give the BBM the soundbites they want to forward a narrative, they don't give you all sorts of time for do-overs or "what I meant to say was"

Voters don't hang around for the context or the explanation, and every headline writer knows that the average news reader only reads the first few paragraphs.

When your whole campaign turns to "what I meant to say was", you're on defense and you're way behind

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:41 PM (Y+DPZ)

384 "It's what is the next POSSIBLE step"

RON PAUL 2012 - Live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 01:41 PM (fyHyt)

385 Is there aChristian candidate anywherethat doesn't thinkhuman beings are supposed tobehavetheir way into Heaven? Is there aChristian candidate anywherethat realizes that the major point of Christianity is that human beings are not capable of behavingtheir way into Heaven?Ain't nobody gonna make it based on their perfect life history. Not even Rick Santorum. Trust me.

Posted by: Satan at February 21, 2012 01:41 PM (gMONh)

386

"Tell me how the irreligious in the hood are doing . ."

Better than they are in Pakistan.


Posted by: Jason


ypou sure about that?

The hood just has better residual infrastructure.

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:41 PM (UaxA0)

387 My previous comment-

<<"Pursuit of Happiness" was an 18th century term of art for the free
enterprise system. It has no direct application to "happiness" as a
concept.

It was placed in the Declaration specifically because a
reference to "property" directly might be taken as a defense of slavery.>>

The fact is that the "pursuit of happiness" is about being able to profit from, and enjoy the fruits of owns own labors, to be free from unreasonable interference of the King and his state in your own affairs and business. It extends and reiterates the rights granted in the Magna Carta.

It is not about religion, but it is also not about sex or X-Box. This is not to say that either religion or sex and X-Box are bad things but just that they are not what Jefferson or the writers of the Magna Carta were talking about.

Posted by: Have Blue at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (IKTC8)

388
Apparently the Pursuit of Happiness just means that I'm free to live my life according to religious doctrine.

I wonder how Rick "Rhymes WIth" would feel about a little alluh akbar religious doctrine? yeah, I figured...as long as it's his religious doctrine, he's fine with it. A different doctrine, not so much...

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (1hM1d)

389 346
>>>If he doesn't want to do anything about it why is he bringing it up and tying it to the constitution?



"Just words"?



I don't think so.

Posted by: ace at February 21, 2012 01:35 PM (nj1bB)
Ace, the country just elected someone who they thought they knew and then the person turned around and morphed into someone no one recognized. So naturally people are just a wee bit concerned about who they will vote for in the next election. People are doing a forensic examination on themselves, trying to figure out how they could have voted for this man, what made them do it and how to avoid it in the future. All across the spectrum. Even the guess jeans CEO, a previously big BO donor, failed to attend or give any fund raisers as she feel BO failed her and her cause, she gave her money to elizabeth warren instead, she feels she knows elizabeth warren. So, Santorum, realizing this is trying to get you to know him, the kind of person he is, what his core beliefs are. He's not going to legislate those beliefs, his record show he wouldn't do that, he just wants you to know that he is dependable and predictable. Which is why so many see him as boring.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (oZfic)

390
Freedoms just another word form nothing left to lose.

tinyurl.com/ycx7ohl

Posted by: Bobby McGee at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (8EjLI)

391 Amusing note: The main knock about Santorum here seems to be that he can't be elected because...they're afraid he'll get elected and do certain things.Posted by: Brother Cavil

Sorry, that's disingenuous. He won't get elected so there's nothing to fear in regards to future legislation.

it is clear now?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (9Hw3U)

392 >>>If he doesn't want to do anything about it why is he bringing it up and tying it to the constitution?
>>>"Just words"?



>>>I don't think so.

Santorum on Birth Control.

“for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it."

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (0q2P7)

393
And if I was in that church in GA last weekend, I would've stood up and said,

"Tell you what, Rick, you save the economy and let's let Jesus save our souls. And, by the way, tell us your plan for cheaper energy so I can afford to gas up my car and continue to exercise my First Amendment right and come to church."




Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (sqkOB)

394 and I am paraphrasing here, that doing an amniocentesis is an excuse for doctors to recommend an abortion.

Ummm... I hate to inform you, but that's mostly how its used. Not entirely, as you and your wife show (me and mine, too, for that matter), but that is mostly how its used. Something comes back "not normal" and almost the first words out of the doctor's mouth are "terminate the pregnancy."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (8y9MW)

395
My only slim hope at this point is Newt somehow pulls it out. I still think all 3 could lose and all could win but Santorum sure seems to be making it much harder for himself. This is not a meme that he wants to carry into the general from a campaign standpoint. This meme will drown out all fair criticism of Obama.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 21, 2012 01:43 PM (r+9M6)

396 Good thing we dodged that 3 term conservative governor bullet.

Posted by: Some moron with nothing interesting to say at February 21, 2012 01:43 PM (qjUnn)

397 @ 350 If you don't know the philosophy, shut the fuck up. You can't merely state this is sooo obviously stupid unless you give a coherent argument for the definition of happiness and a reason why it does not consist in a life of virtuous activity. There is a rich intellectual tradition behind Santorum'a statement. This can be argued without resorting to theology. So once again, unless you can bring similar support, shut your yap.


I blame the public schools. As many of our libertarian friends on here are showing, a lack of education isn't limited to those on the Left.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:43 PM (+inic)

398 Imp, that seems to be the major argument against Romney, that he will take that next logical step, or at least not make any effort to repeal what's already there. And I have no problem with that objection, although I may or may not share it myself.
And I'm not suggesting that such bannings as I spoke of are possible now, but simply logical and possible under the conditiions I presented--that certain harmless, private, and non-violent activities are deemed to be not part of the pursuit of happiness and therefore not protected. I don't want that decision made by a Conservative dictatorship any more than I want them made under the present Liberal dictatorship.

Posted by: MikeinAmman at February 21, 2012 01:44 PM (fc76N)

399
http://tinyurl.com/7gor5rz

Posted by: MoeMoe at February 21, 2012 01:44 PM (cey9b)

400 1995 not 1988. Brain lapse

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:44 PM (wuv1c)

401 360 Santorum 2012: because I will stop your husbands from expecting a bj
Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:37 PM (yAor6)


Wouldn't he lock up > 90% of married female voters on that platform alone?

Posted by: Insomniac at February 21, 2012 01:44 PM (v+QvA)

402 No damn good will come of nominating this moran.

Posted by: creeper at February 21, 2012 01:44 PM (gre5a)

403 Alex, he may be on the big government side, but I think it is possible to believe, as a federalist and not a believer in big government, that Griswold was wrongly decided because the states should have the power to determine whether or not contraceptives can be regulated or prohibited.


Oh absolutely. Hell, when I was in law school I nearly caused a fist fight in Con Law by pointing out that the majority position in Griswold is utter utter bullshit.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 21, 2012 01:44 PM (Gk3SS)

404 BTW, doesn't Mitch Daniels' truce on social issues sound pretty good right about now?

Posted by: rockmom at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (NYnoe)

405 >>Apparently the Pursuit of Happiness just means that I'm free to live my life according to religious doctrine.

Free Radicals. who needs them?

Posted by: Bobby McGee at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (8EjLI)

406 AllenG, really? That wasn't the sense I got, but maybe I am naive. In any case, I am confident of one thing: I am losing what little faith in humanity I had.

Posted by: jakeman at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (96M6e)

407 I say again, THIRD look at Newt anybody????

Can I get an AMEN!

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (+inic)

408 346 >>>If he doesn't want to do anything about it why is he bringing it up and tying it to the constitution?

"Just words"?

I don't think so.
Posted by: ace at February 21, 2012 01:35 PM (nj1bB)
--------
What do you think he will do?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (zLeKL)

409 Nobody denies that Santorum voted poorly on that. But then again, the bill doesn't have his name on it, either.

It was Bush's fault! It will be such a nice change of pace to have a president that has never been detached from the government teat, never run anything besides an election campaign, loves big government and blames everything on Bush. Hosanna!!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (+lsX1)

410 What's sad is that I'm not at all surprised by the reaction on this thread by people who claim to be conservative. Santorum said nothing threatening. He just reiterated the basic tenents of freedom.

Posted by: Soona at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (SiK35)

411 "Santorum, realizing this is trying to get you to know him, the kind of person he is, what his core beliefs are."

People don't need or want the truth about who their politicians are. Durable lies and the ability to fake whatever needs to be fakes for 4/8 years are all they really need. ex. Bill Clinton.

Obama's lies weren't durable, and he can't fake shit.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 01:46 PM (fyHyt)

412 What is the non-religious, secular basis for morals anyway?

If we're simply the product of random events in an indifferent universe, your grounding for ethics becomes mighty tenuous and uncertain indeed. After all, if we're REALLY in a purely Darwinian state, why should be tolerate anyone else? Why look out for the needy or poor? Why not dominate the minority or the weak? Survival of the fittest and all that.....

The only answer to this is a functional one; 'ethics' then becomes not about that which is inherently good in itself but rather that which is useful for the moment.

But social contract theory only goes so far. At the risk of running afoul of Godwin's law: the Nazis had a social contract that worked *for them*. (Their only failure in this light would be their ultimate ineffectiveness in maintaining power.)

In a truly materialist, Darwinian world, after all, what makes their society "bad"? Nothing, exactly. Because killing others who are weaker or less adapted or less prepared than you can't properly be labeled as "bad". It simply becomes a matter of one organism or collective adapting, surviving, and thriving at the expense of another, weaker one.

Be wary of casting out Judeo-Christian ethics -- and the grounds to those ethics -- from the public sphere. The shared assumptions leftover from the remnants of this tradition might carry us for a generation, maybe two, but it's only a matter of time until some start to realize, as Dostoyevsky did, that without God all things are permissible.....

That line might sound like a great credo for Libertarianism. But Dostoyevsky meant something much more sinister. Unrestrained human freedom can be every bit as dystopic as utopic, Ace.




Posted by: diogenes at February 21, 2012 01:46 PM (ubduJ)

413

also, what ELSE did Santorum say in the whole speech? It wasn't 30 minutes of God, God, God.

What the fuck ELSE did he say, you vaunted defenders of freedom...

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:46 PM (UaxA0)

414 Can we debate "General Welfare" next? Maybe even PROMOTE vesus PROVIDE and that even if the public wrongly interprets that the federal government is charged with PROVIDING it, General Welafare isNOT keeping up with the Joneses with iPods and every creature comfort/toy that hits the free market?

Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:46 PM (gMONh)

415 Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:40 PM (wuv1c)
another PWNED by Ben

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:47 PM (yAor6)

416 BTW, doesn't Mitch Daniels' truce on social issues sound pretty good right about now?

Posted by: rockmom at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (NYnoe)

not if it hurts Mr. Electability

Posted by: The Dude at February 21, 2012 01:47 PM (M8yfa)

417 Ace, gotta say though that you are a pretty sloppy libertarian.

If the state is reformed and we become free, all of the functions that the state currently controls will have to be taken over by individuals and voluntary organizations.

Now, are you going to feed and house the lepers? I know I'm not.

Point being that every libertarian should understand that when force, fraud, and coercion are removed something is going to have to take up the slack, and it ain't going to be libertinism. You will of course have a right to be libertine, but that won't have relevance to the School Board.

This was part of the reason I found the opposition to Newt's immigration boards so annoying. (I don't like them, but because I don't think they would be needed). People say they want to be free, but when the freedom entails being involved they get all pissy.

There seems to be some confusion about what Freedom entails exactly, which makes sense since none of us have every really been free, unless there are some 100 year-old morons.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 21, 2012 01:47 PM (N/1Dm)

418 It wasn't 30 minutes of God, God, God.

He spent like 20 minutes wondering who stole his Jesus fish. It was really quite awkward.

Posted by: lorien1973 at February 21, 2012 01:47 PM (0tkqC)

419 What's sad is that I'm not at all surprised by the reaction on this thread by people who claim to be conservative. Santorum said nothing threatening. He just reiterated the basic tenents of freedom.
Posted by: Soona at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (SiK35)

Yep. He clearly articulated the philosophical basis for this nation's founding, and everyone hyperventilates. Sad.

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 01:47 PM (WsFyX)

420 Santorum 2012: because the swetervest tells you to

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:47 PM (yAor6)

421 RON PAUL 2012 - Live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse.

*******

Ron Paul has observably violated two of these...

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:48 PM (r2PLg)

422 404 BTW, doesn't Mitch Daniels' truce on social issues sound pretty good right about now?
Posted by: rockmom at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (NYnoe)

Conservatives in all their brilliance couldnt wait to label him a RINO and still do.
.... but praise every Governor who is modeling their plans after what Daniels did before it was cool.
Stupid party.

Posted by: Some moron with nothing interesting to say at February 21, 2012 01:48 PM (qjUnn)

423 "Pursuit of Happiness" means: You all don't get to take the fruit of my labor. It isn't really any more complicated that that.

Posted by: JR3 at February 21, 2012 01:48 PM (rHaMl)

424 Perception is everything in elections

GW Bush talked about his faith in one famous interview, and after that the BBM somehow convinced most Americans that Bush was Pat Robertson

I don't recall Bush saying much about it other than that interview, but Young Ron Reagan used his eulogy to his father to say "my dad didn't wear his religion on his sleeve like SOME (BOOSH!!!) do"

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:48 PM (Y+DPZ)

425 I think Santorum is lucky most Americans don't understand that blowjobs count as sodomy. He'd lose 30% of the male vote overnight. Might gain some female votes though. I've known a few women who agree with Rick on the fundamental ickiness of the bj. Most men seem to be in favor of them, though.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at February 21, 2012 01:48 PM (ZPrif)

426 Santorum 2012: Jesus loves you, even though you're all wicked heathen sodomites.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 21, 2012 01:48 PM (SY2Kh)

427 “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it."

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 21, 2012 01:42 PM (0q2P7)


Well I here I think Santorum is parsing words or just flat out lying.

I think in his heart he'd be perfectly fine with outlawing contraception and/or would only have a pro forma objection to others doing it.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 21, 2012 01:48 PM (CkoMi)

428 Eh, I'm going disagree with your analysis here, Ace.

What Santorum is saying is simply that a system of minimal governance as designed by the Founders requires a populous who can exercise self-governance and self-control.

ie. Not rob your neighbor because you want a new TV.

Santorum would tie that into Christian belief as that is the moral underpinning of most Founding documents.- All men equal in the sight of God, etc.

Where I disagree with Santorum is where he gives a reach-around to Obama in that he defines the acquistion of "stuff" as bad or at least undesirable.

This is the reasoning of the left- ie. my money, my time, my life could be used for better purposes as defined by them.

This is the philosophical model for taxing me more because I'll just spend my money on what I want- like sending my kids to college or a family trip.

It is the argument for a "modest American dream" as Obama is touting today:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120221/D9T1KH900.html

It is a vision of constraint based on taking away the "disposable income" from the citizen for the Greater good.

This is where Santorum goes way-way-way off track..

But his vision of free citizens doing the right thing because of internal moral contraints is hugely different than Obama's vision of doing the right thing because the state compels you at every turn.

Some people need to read or re-read "A Clockwork Orange".

(esp. some of the idiots who write reviews at Amazon and miss the point by a mile)

Posted by: naturalfake at February 21, 2012 01:48 PM (XBdI0)

429 407 I say again, THIRD look at Newt anybody???? Can I get an AMEN!
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:45 PM (+inic)

----------------------

Amen.........verily. I can't vote for Santorum or Romney............just can't. So, on March 6th I'll be pulling the lever for Newt. Not because I think he can win. Not because he would necessarily pursue the policy changes I would agree with. I will vote for him simply because he's the lesser of many other evils.

Posted by: Not an Artist at February 21, 2012 01:49 PM (Lo/3Q)

430
>>I say again, THIRD look at Newt anybody????

>>Can I get an AMEN!

No.

Posted by: Ben at February 21, 2012 01:49 PM (wuv1c)

431 Once again, Ace can't handle the truth.

Posted by: Gerry at February 21, 2012 01:49 PM (Hc9Yd)

432 Still the way to attack Santorum is not full frontal, you gotta try flanking him.

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:49 PM (r2PLg)

433 If Santorum is the nominee, then we'll all know the feeling that Redskins fans get when Rex Grossman trots out to the huddle

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:26 PM (Y+DPZ)
---------------------------------------------------------
Him or Heath Shuler.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 21, 2012 01:49 PM (jucos)

434 AllenG, really? That wasn't the sense I got, but maybe I am naive. In
any case, I am confident of one thing: I am losing what little faith in
humanity I had.


Yes, really. I was blessed with two healthy children, but everyone I know who has had some abnormal result from the amniocentesis come back has reported the same thing: they weren't just provided with the option of abortion, but encouraged to choose such option.

Most of those ended up having children with no problems at all, by the way. Amniocentesis- besides being an excuse for an abortion- is not the most accurate of tests. The only reason my wife got one (with each of our children) was because it was required (by our insurance at the time, I think) due to her health.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:49 PM (8y9MW)

435 " Santorum said nothing threatening."

Doh. What he actually said don't mean shit, really, it doesn't. Its how the media and the Dems can portray it that matters, and Santorum is apparently so tone deaf about that aspect of politics he's been handing them ammo by the truckload.

During a campaign, there are some things you NEED to STFU about and avoid like the plague.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 01:50 PM (fyHyt)

436 Spurious premise, since it's exceedingly unlikely that two said persons are going to lead the exact same life.
------------------------------
Ok, so what moral behavior is dependent upon religion?

What immoral behavior is impossible inside of religious belief?

Posted by: MJ at February 21, 2012 01:50 PM (/x4oj)

437 "The freedom to do, not what we want to do, but what we ought to do."


He's right. This is the most correct definition of freedom in my opinion: the freedom to obey; the freedom to do what needs to be done; the freedom to act within your own abilities in such a manner that you are in harmony with the Law (and, presumably, the secularlaw).

This is not limiting; it is a definitionof asociety being in harmony with the virtuous individual, and not with the carnal one.


Unfortunately, almost nobody is going to hear it the way I hear it. Most folks are going to hear it the way ace hears it-- asa statement against individual liberty.

Posted by: Truman North at February 21, 2012 01:50 PM (I2LwF)

438 Ummm... I hate to inform you, but that's mostly how its used. Not entirely, as you and your wife show (me and mine, too, for that matter), but that is mostly how its used. Something comes back "not normal" and almost the first words out of the doctor's mouth are "terminate the pregnancy."


Yuppers. It's not unknown for a doctor who is presenting abnormal results to then turn around and simply start giving available dates for termination without bothering to check first if that's the parents' choice.


Now, you may want to quibble that the point of the test is to determine if abnormalities may be present but the practical result is generally going to be a recommendation to terminate. Oh hey and back to my failure to disclose information pet peeve, an amnio itself is not risk free. Again, far too many women have no idea that there are risks to the baby from the test itself.

Posted by: alexthechick at February 21, 2012 01:50 PM (Gk3SS)

439 Santorum said nothing threatening. He just reiterated the basic tenents of freedom.

Posted by: Soona


Unfortunately that rationalization will become cold comfort on Nov. 7th.

Cold and wet. And a bit funky too.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 21, 2012 01:51 PM (9Hw3U)

440 @ 429 I can't vote for Santorum or Romney............just can't.

Santorum, not my first choice, but at least could live with him. Romney? No way. I'd rather flop my jimmy on a red hot stove eye than vote for him, even in the general.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 21, 2012 01:51 PM (+inic)

Posted by: Have Blue at February 21, 2012 01:51 PM (IKTC8)

442
brb, puttin 'freedom' in my gas tank

Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 01:51 PM (sqkOB)

443 I'm really struggling to understand what Santorum's talk is getting at.

Does he want a theocracy? Sort of sounds like it? Maybe just flirting with it?

If it was just a sermon, it'd be pretty normal. It's in Christian doctrine that we can only serve one master, either be enslaved to sin or free to serve Christ. Totally vanilla.

But if you are running for office, and not speaking as behind the pulpit, you better watch what you say, as it'll lead to this if not.

But, I guess if the plan is to Piss Off The Establishment and Scare the Squishy Moderates away we'll be doing just fine.

Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (2okAn)

444 That being said, Purple Avenger is completely right. He's handing his opponents loaded handguns.

Posted by: Truman North at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (I2LwF)

445
Hey, Freedom just called and said, "Lunch is on me!"


Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (sqkOB)

446
Posted by: darii at February 21, 2012 01:36 PM (HPA5g)



Someone is awful proud of completing Philiosophy 250 at the local community college.

Go fuck yourself, and the rest of you Santorum supporitng dumbasses who have no comprehension of federalism. (And as you seem to be all about the credentials, I say this asa lawyerwho previously completed majors in Philosophy, Religion, and Political Science -- and my experience in all those fields leads me to conclude that Santorum is a fuckwad).

Posted by: wooga at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (vjyZP)

447
Oh yes, because in our Founders time there was complete freedom to make the wrong decisions without repercussions. Folks, the repercussions were inherent in everyday life. You screw up and you pay the price, it was natural, they didn't have to put it down in the constitution. You break into a house you get shot, pretty simple. You rape a woman, you get shot, pretty simple. You steal someone's horse, you get shot, pretty simple. You make a pass at a woman of a different color, you got shot, pretty simple. And the government didn't step in and say you shouldn't have gotten shot.
It wasn't a case of freedom to make poor decisions, it was a case that you cannot make those poor decisions without giving up your right to exist. It was inherent that you didn't have the right to screw up, traditional morality was built into the framers mind somuch so that it didn't need to be put down on paper for future generations, it was a part of their natural state, like breathing air. They didn't even consider that breathing air would have to be in the constitution, protected or regulated, same thing, being moral was a requisite of the pursuit of happiness just as breathing air was a requisite of the pursuit of happiness, it was a given, didn't need written down.

Posted by: doug at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (gUGI6)

448 401
360 Santorum 2012: because I will stop your husbands from expecting a bj

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:37 PM (yAor6)





Wouldn't he lock up > 90% of married female voters on that platform alone?

Posted by: Insomniac at February 21, 2012 01:44 PM (v+QvA)>>
Throw in anal sex and you can probably lock up 95% .

Posted by: Have Blue at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (IKTC8)

449 also, what ELSE did Santorum say in the whole speech? It wasn't 30 minutes of God, God, God.

What the fuck ELSE did he say, you vaunted defenders of freedom...



Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:46 PM

If Rev Rick spends 1 minute out of 30 talking about religion or morals, which minute makes the evening news soundbites?

His policy points about reforming the tax code is an incorrect answer. Thank you for playing

Rick just keeps grabbing for that tube of Tardasil

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (Y+DPZ)

450 Mainline protestants gone from the world of Christianity.

Someone should tell Santorum that majority of mainline protestants (Presbyterian, Methodist, UCC, Episcopalian, most Lutherans) are Republicans and independents.

Posted by: wombat at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (wizth)

451 Look *if* Santorum beats Romney on Super Tuesday then some are going to have to admit Mitt has a problem.

I don't see it happening.

California goes of the first week of June.

This is all fretting for not.

Don't poop your pants till that happens.

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:53 PM (r2PLg)

452 AllenG, I guess I count us lucky that it didn't come to that. I can't even imagine how I would have reacted.

Of course, now that my son is a PIA teenager, I often use my dad's line, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it."

Posted by: jakeman at February 21, 2012 01:53 PM (96M6e)

453
Really sucks putting $100 in your gas tank every week.

Talking about freedom does shit for me.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 21, 2012 01:53 PM (sqkOB)

454 I'm asking again- putting aside the electability issue for a moment, those of you who criticize Santorum- is he right about this? Is a moral foundation necessary to limited government? Is the government we have now attempting to destroy our moral foundation in order to enslave us?

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 01:53 PM (WsFyX)

455 Santorum 2012: Freedom means obedience.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 21, 2012 01:53 PM (SY2Kh)

456 435
" Santorum said nothing threatening."

Doh. What he actually said
don't mean shit, really, it doesn't. Its how the media and the Dems can
portray it that matters, and Santorum is apparently so tone deaf about
that aspect of politics he's been handing them ammo by the truckload.

During a campaign, there are some things you NEED to STFU about and avoid like the plague.


Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 01:50 PM

THIS +1000

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:54 PM (Y+DPZ)

457 360 Santorum 2012: because I will stop your husbands from expecting a bj

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 01:37 PM (yAor6)





Wouldn't he lock up > 90% of married female voters on that platform alone?

Posted by: Insomniac at February 21, 2012 01:44 PM (v+QvA)>>
Throw in anal sex and you can probably lock up 95% .
Posted by: Have Blue at February 21, 2012 01:52 PM (IKTC

*********

You're gonna have to lock up somebody....

Posted by: tasker at February 21, 2012 01:54 PM (r2PLg)

458 Jakeman 93% of women given a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome have an abortion. Doctors tell you that you should abort, and pressure you to make a snap decision based on out dated, fatalistic information.

Posted by: Lauren at February 21, 2012 01:56 PM (/E6lO)

459 Not talking about social issues means ceding that ground to the liberals. And that means losing the country, no matter what your tax policy is.

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 01:57 PM (WsFyX)

460 Again, far too many women have no idea that there are risks to the baby from the test itself.

alexthechick, our doc made it amply clear about the risks. Scared the crap out of us, honestly. And THEN I saw the needle...whoa.

Posted by: jakeman at February 21, 2012 01:57 PM (96M6e)

461 >>>It's a sound bite world, and Santorum should know better. If he doesn't then he's a disaster in the general.

OK So we've graduated from the irrational analysis that Santorum wants to remake the US into an extension of the Holy See, to he is bad at campaigning cause he just can't leave this bone alone. OK I agree he's guilty of that. Doesn't mean I'm going to start supporting Romney. I just agree he gets drawn into this discussion way to easily.

I sympathize a little with him. Along with our fiscal decay, America has had a moral decay, and on both fronts we've reached the tipping point where should we continue any further on either front we should not expect the next generation to live free as we did. There is a spotlight on the fiscal issue. There is Eric Holder® brand black out ink all over the moral issues the US faces.

We can see the fall out in the polls. Despite Obama's clear socialist tendencies, and predilection to rule by edict. We can still expect that he will receive more than 40% of the popular vote. If we arrest fiscal decay, but we find no way to address moral decay, we will at most buy a couple of decades.

So I can understand why he *wants* to talk about it. But the President really can't fix that problem.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Researching How to Awaken Azathoth at February 21, 2012 01:57 PM (0q2P7)

462 I'm not a Santorum supporter here, but I kinda have to agree with him. Modern society has conflated happiness and pleasure. Historically, this is an aberration. Most of western civilization has consider happiness to be something higher than pleasure.

Show of hands: How many of us spend our free time pursuing pleasure and amusement, rather than happiness and excellence? I'm sure as hell guilty of it.

Posted by: Chris at February 21, 2012 01:57 PM (E9kgB)

463 If you're a Republican and you turned your state's budget from a disaster to a surplus, added jobs by the truckload, made it a smashing success and got caught fapping in a ladies dressing room when you were 19, which will the media ask you about for the next week?

Especially if you keep trying to explain "what I was really doing was ..."


Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:58 PM (Y+DPZ)

464 Purple Avenger at February 21, 2012 01:50 PM (fyHyt)
"Tone deaf." That sums it up well.
"During a campaign, there are some things you NEED to STFU about and avoid like the plague."

I need to wait for or search for your comments before I take the time write all the gobbledygook I write that almost makes the same points. It trieses, though, it does.

Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:58 PM (gMONh)

465

certain harmless, private, and non-violent activities are deemed to be
not part of the pursuit of happiness and therefore not protected


They're not "protected" now, Mike.

Internet porn is going nowhere, ever (I'm thinking when teh whales develop mechanical civilizations, they will still be able to access our electronic erotica.)

Point is, this blathering about how RS hates freedom is deeply disingenuous.

Posted by: imp at February 21, 2012 01:58 PM (UaxA0)

466 And Mitt just loves libertarians?


The guy who signed an "assault" weapons ban because he was concerned about "weapons of unusual lethality"...

Posted by: Mongoose at February 21, 2012 01:58 PM (KM86p)

467 #454, Oh hell yeah it is, but instead of educating the populus about the dangers of cultural Marxism, which might actually be useful, Santorum lectures us about God'sWill, and then acts all surprised when people say we're not voting for a Pastor-in-Chief.
Like I said, he isn't really trying to be President, he's just using this campaign as a giant megaphone to shout his views to everyone who will listen. Meanwhile, Obama's running up another $3.5 billion in debt today.

Posted by: rockmom at February 21, 2012 01:58 PM (NYnoe)

468 Doh. What he actually said don't mean shit, really, it doesn't. Its how
the media and the Dems can portray it that matters, and Santorum is
apparently so tone deaf about that aspect of politics he's been handing
them ammo by the truckload.


Then could Ace please address Romney's statement today? The one where he embraced Keyensianism? Also the one where he was talking up the unions? How about the one where he was lauding the "managed bankruptcy" of the US Auto Industry?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 21, 2012 01:59 PM (8y9MW)

469 I'm asking again- putting aside the electability
issue for a moment, those of you who criticize Santorum- is he right
about this? Is a moral foundation necessary to limited government? Is
the government we have now attempting to destroy our moral foundation in
order to enslave us?

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 01:53 PM (WsFyX)

yes, without a moral foundation history has shown that it inevitably leads to a population that sees government as an all seeing eye (in a good way). Hence why communists always go after religion first as it's a big part of the moral foundation.

Posted by: The Dude at February 21, 2012 01:59 PM (M8yfa)

470 Rick Santorum is the Jon Stewart of politicians.

Priest collar on! Priest collar off!

The framers meant happiness as in doing the moral thing.

*wink wink*

Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at February 21, 2012 01:59 PM (2okAn)

471 Show of hands: How many of us spend our free
time pursuing pleasure and amusement, rather than happiness and
excellence? I'm sure as hell guilty of it.

Posted by: Chris at February 21, 2012 01:57 PM

What's on my other browser tabs is between me and the ghosts in here, bucko!

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 01:59 PM (Y+DPZ)

472 "Your argument is a straw man, one which originates in the typically
libertarian overreaction to hearing people assert that America was
founded upon a Judeo-Christian heritage. Libertarians hear that and
think people are saying 'the Founders wanted a theocracy, Waaaaah!'"
Except for the times when people actually are saying that. Yes, the government has a Christian heritage. It also has pagan heritage, as well (two -- Roman and Germanic) along with a strong dose of secularism out of the Enlightenment. That America was overwhelmingly Christian at the time is an unavoidable fact. However, those Christians set out to make a secular government. That was their expressed and clear intent. Not secular in the way that the French did later, and badly, but secular in a way that was not antagonistic. Over and over this was stated in their personal writings, in debates in Congress, in Congressional acts, and yes in Tom's letter to the Danbury Baptists. There was dissent. Patrick Henry was devoted to the CoE, and wanted that to be the official state religion (that's the Episcapalians (or however it's spelled, can't be bothered to check) so, obviously, Patrick Henry supported gay marriage and gay bishops and all that). But most people eventually decided to not give a shit what their neighbor believed.
It is that apathetic not-giving-a-shit that I want to preserve.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at February 21, 2012 02:00 PM (jqHOY)

473 Is a moral foundation necessary to limited
government? Is the government we have now attempting to destroy our
moral foundation in order to enslave us?Posted by: Matt from CO


Perhaps, perhaps not. It's irrelevant.

It's the economy. Period.

Further, if it were a debate that the US public were interested in having, Rick would be the last person we'd call upon to argue for us. He's just not that persuasive as a humorless scold, and he lacks the fundamental quality that happy warriors possess. Wit.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 21, 2012 02:00 PM (9Hw3U)

474 And really, all this prognosticating about electoral politics? It's retarded. Nobody here knows anything except whatever CW that best supports their position.

If we've learned anything about politics since 9/11 and the financial collapse it's that the CW is is becoming less and less reliable.

So just quit it. It makes it hard to follow a thread when you have to skip over all the Little Nostradomuses.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 21, 2012 02:00 PM (N/1Dm)

475 Think of it this way. Here's the Progressive program, boiled down:

"Booze, dope, and ****ing in the streets, sure, but actually let them govern themselves? Are you kidding me? Look at 'em -- all they care about is booze, dope, and ****ing in the streets!"

In other words, Progressives concede the primary premise, that liberty requires a virtuous people. I don't think that some of the things Santorum is talking about here can be legislated (nor should they be), but he is making a point that makes a lot of people uncomfortable -- because, as I said before, it pricks your withered conscience. So does Ron Paul.

Posted by: Ken at February 21, 2012 02:01 PM (7yb9x)

476 Of course, there is now little need for an amnio. A dimples first trimester blood test can test for Down Syndrome. Expect to see fewer and fewer kids with DS in the coming years.

Posted by: Lauren at February 21, 2012 02:01 PM (/E6lO)

477 Aside from the folks who are terrified that RS will take away their dope and Jenna Jameson DVDs, most people here seem to be afraid that the rest of their fellow citizens are too stupid to hear the truth, so RS should just whisper sweet nothings of pablum in their ears.

So, is it your position that not telling the truth to people is the correct tactic for a conservative candidate? Seems to me that if that is your recommendation for electoral success, it is time to give up on being a conservative and just embrace our Obama overlords.


Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 21, 2012 02:01 PM (dcoFe)

478 By the way, for Santorum-fans (like me), we'd all better get our heads around the fact that Romney is still highly likely to win. And that's not so bad. He's a good man and would be a good candidate.

For Santorum-haters (like some of the rest of you), you'd all better get your heads around the fact that Romney is highly likely to choose Santorum as his running mate. Again, he's also a good man and would be a good candidate. For instance, he'd help Romney in the upper Midwest with Catholics, and everywhere else with Evangelicals and social conservatives. (Unless you really think you can win by alienating those blocs, in which case you're just goofy.) And I think he'd eat Joe Biden's lunch in a debate.

This intramural squabbling is fun and all in February, a diversion on a gray day (at least here in Wisconsin). We've still got plenty of time to come back together to defeat Obama, particularly if gas prices get to $5/gallon this summer, Iran blows up, the economy double-dips, etc. So knock yourselves out.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 21, 2012 02:01 PM (qHCyt)

479 This is why Santorum is a poor candidate.

This thread shows that even people who should understand what he's saying, don't.

In his own way Santorum is as undisciplined as Newt. With Newt it's the Moon Base, with Santorum it's morality.

Anyone who saw the Bob Shafer(sp?) interview with Santorum Sunday saw shafer blame Santorum for the fact that they couldn't talk about Santorum's economic plans because Santorum had talked about morality and that was news.

The whole stinkin' election will go like that if he's the candidate.

Santorum has no ability to pivot off these questions with a short answer and talk about how lousy Obama is.

Actually, neither Mitt nor Newt have shown that ability either.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 21, 2012 02:01 PM (XBdI0)

480 Santorum 2012: i'm watching you

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 02:02 PM (yAor6)

481 Perhaps, perhaps not. It's irrelevant.

It's the economy. Period.

Further, if it were a debate that the US public were interested in having, Rick would be the last person we'd call upon to argue for us. He's just not that persuasive as a humorless scold, and he lacks the fundamental quality that happy warriors possess. Wit.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 21, 2012 02:00 PM (9Hw3U)

Maybe you're right, but again, Ace didn't just say that this made Santorum unelectable. He said that Santorum was an enemy of freedom. I'm not arguing the point that Santorum doesn't have electability hurdles. He sure does, but so does Romney and Gingrich. I'm arguing that electability aside, Santorum is right about this.

Posted by: Matt from CO at February 21, 2012 02:03 PM (WsFyX)

482 Santorum also has this huge perception problem in that he either reminds voters of Principal Skinner, Rev Lovejoy, or in his lighter moments, Ned Flanders

Kind of a combination of all three

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 02:04 PM (Y+DPZ)

483 It isappropriate for Santorum to notethat you need a virtuous people to have a viable republican form of gov't. That's not the problem with what he said, despite Santorum supporters trying to create a straw man on that point. The problem is that Santorum has repeatedly said that he believes that it is appropriate for morality to be legislated at the federal level, and that states do not have the right to enact laws contrary tothe "national moral enterprise" despite the words of the 10th Amendment.

The prime example is from the Ames debate, when Santorum attacked Bachmann for claiming that states have a right to legalize SSM. Santorum said that state do not have the right to define marriage, because it would be contrary to national morality.

No for you Santorum lovers, I don't care about gay marriage in particular. The problem is that it shows a wilfull ignorance of the words of the COnstitution and the role of the federal gov't as opposed to the states and the individual. When you couple Santorum's nationalistic tendencies on SSM with other "moral issues" (Michelle Obama believes diet is a moral issue), you see that Santorum is an appalling candidate to the 'limited gov't' wing of the party.

Posted by: wooga at February 21, 2012 02:05 PM (vjyZP)

484 Santorum 2012: no sex for fun, it's not productive

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 02:05 PM (yAor6)

485 What is the non-religious, secular basis for morals anyway?

It can start with the Ethic of Reciprocity and work its way to something like the Declaration's 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.'

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at February 21, 2012 02:06 PM (jqHOY)

486 Santorum 2012: the dick not the hair

Posted by: AuthorLMendez at February 21, 2012 02:07 PM (yAor6)

487 Hey, OT here. I'm supposed to lay off Michelle Antoinette in the sidebar, but here's a great article detailing her food hypocrisy. Fat fucking turd-cow hypocrite. I hate her more than her fucking empty suit husband.

link in sig

Posted by: Truman North at February 21, 2012 02:07 PM (I2LwF)

488 Santorum 2012: I'll beat Obama even without all you libertarian pantywaists.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at February 21, 2012 02:09 PM (34fpm)

489 Man this is so depressing. Please pardon a brief rant:

You want to talk about a different type of "Christian?" How about the actual ones who reject schemes by either Church or State organizations to MAKE human beings more moral and righteous. That was what Christ alone can do, and did.

To friends who read this blog, Christian or not - here's a hot tip: Anyone who claims to be 'Christian' and then talks about living by the Ten Commandments has entirely missed the point of Christianity.

The point of the Commandments was to show that man COULD NOT keep God's standard -> thus Grace through Christ.

The End.

There is no "righteous living," there is no "Christian morality." Christianity has one single focus - God's grace (from Greek: unmerited favor) through Christ. FFS - this is Romans 101. Read it. It's very clear on this point.

Christianity is fundamentally a rejection of relativistic human moral systems to reach God, aka "religions" - regardless of what name they take on. The only way to obtain God's goodness is to accept what God offered to man: the gift of Christ.

If you want to "earn" God's favor - you go ahead and try that out. Unless you are totally dishonest about yourself - I bet you don't make it a day without feeling like an utter f*cking disgrace. And that will have proven my point then.

Sorry, but I feel like this damn well needs to be heard - amidst all this God dammed (using the phrase correctly here) bullshit like 'doing the morally right thing.' That may have some application on a practical human level - but don't confuse that with anything Christian.

It seems apparent that Santorum can't quite articulate this very simple and important distinction. That again, is a damned travesty.



Posted by: Adc at February 21, 2012 02:09 PM (VCCe8)

490 When the BBM polls Americans over the "Who would you rather have a beer with, Obama or Santorum"

Well, that's where you have to turn your gaze away, it's too ugly

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 02:10 PM (Y+DPZ)

491 But no, Santorum challenges Satan to a fistfight, so we're talking about that instead.
Maybe Rick's angling for a guest appearance on South Park.

Posted by: South Park has Jesus v. Satan fights at February 21, 2012 02:11 PM (AWxUm)

492 I'd rather have a beer with my mother-in-law.

She's actually a great lady.

Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at February 21, 2012 02:11 PM (2okAn)

493 490
When the BBM polls Americans over the "Who would you rather have a beer with, Obama or Santorum"

Well, that's where you have to turn your gaze away, it's too ugly



Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 02:10 PM

Well, me and Rick sure had a happy glass of Apple Juice right after church last Sunday!

Posted by: Ned Flanders at February 21, 2012 02:12 PM (Y+DPZ)

494 "Sex, Lies and Rick SantorumThe politics of the double standard on social issues."http://tinyurl.com/6mpr89r

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 02:14 PM (oZfic)

495 More semi-hysterical "theocrat retard" stuff. This is both boring and unimpressive. If that's all Romney has to throw at this point then that's probably why he's in 2nd place. Yeah, as much as you brave super heroes struggle against the looming shadow of THEOCRAZY Romney still sucks shit and hangs limp and he's facing to the left.

Try actually making Romney better. Inspire him. Kick his ass and get HIM to listen to this kind of principled rejection crap, because if he DOESN'T get better then all this kvetching is purely academic.

I dunno. Maybe it is academic, and we are just betting on Obama being a self flushing disaster and on the american voter being smart, observant, angry, and interested enough to not be re-hoped or re-changed in 2012. If that's the case I might as well go back to sleep and see you all in early November.

But singing the very same song the press and democrats are ONLY MORE LOUDLY just makes you look like a sad mob of confused, desperate, approval seeing poser assholes.

You are offering yourselves to the left as a chainsaw if they'll just use you to cut down your big ugly shame tree. Oh and here's Romney with his automatic inflation indexed minimum wage increases, his Trump endorsement, his quasi-blue-dog baffle gab, and the same old 'praiseworthy polite loser' strategy hoping if he throws all his bombs to the right and none tot he left that the media and independents will play nice with him and be fair for once.

It's 2008 all over again only we are hoping that Obama's fans have slipped enough to make 2008 work. The base is sad, split, disgusted, and drowsy, and anticipating a serious party split and political fratricide instead after the election instead of unity.

Great job!

Rick Perry: inarticulate grinning hick imbecile, thinks base is heartless, forced women to take tardisil, anti-science because of Texas Intelligent design being in textbooks, doubts AGW, face of hunting lease n-head rock not sufficiently painted over when excavated, supported Al Gore in democratic primary back when a democrat and when Al Gore was a conservative pro life democrat, America is sick to death of of fucking cowboys southern accents and all of that Bush shit. Texas is a self running state and not challenging to run like Massachusetts. Promised that he would not run for president and then did. OMG is he stoned? WTF!

Bachmann: crazy evil ridiculous superstitious anti-science theocrat, corn dog, wild eyed, liar, conspiracy nut, tardisil, tea party (racist, stupid, violent, homophobic, angry white male, guns etc.)

Cain: horndog con-man, infantile, unserious, libertarian populist, 999, pizza guy, unauthorized pretender to black status who is not down for the struggle, rich guy, bad accent

Huntsman : Obama's man, douchebag poser, mandarin, smug, stiff, annoying daughters in stupid tasteless youtube music video shit, doesn't sound republican OR conservative, meh...TAH...who cares.

Rick Santorum: misogynistic one man torquemada and big social spender, anti-freedom, most hated man ever, tea party hater, sweater vest, anti-science, face begs for punching, wants to put your dick in prison, creepy dead baby thing

Dr Ron Paul : Crazy, supported by crazies, racist, supported by racists, foreign policy of a lunatic, hard money, conspiracies, disturbing news letters, looks like a gnome, long history or political near irrelevance, actually hoots.

Mitt Romney: moderate centrist, snippy milquetoast, uptight, stiff, not comfortable with conservatism, probably going to fuck us over as soon as the coast is clear, poor winning record, Romney care, blue stater, heavily promoted on largely false sense of inevitability, distrusted by most of base, likes to be able to fire people, one term blue state governor who ended streak of four republican governors by not running due to lack of voter support, failed to get into senate, past of leftward leaning, seems fairly hostile to tea party excepting Marco Rubio.

Newt Gingrich: flake, pompous, moon base, most hated man ever (except Santorum when necessary), probably a corrupt crook, heartless wife leaver, wants to put try courts in Congress for bad judgements, unserious, pie in the sky, big words, wrong side of multiple issues like Scozzafava, Ryan plan, AGW and cap and trade, health insurance mandates



Posted by: cackfinger at February 21, 2012 02:14 PM (a9mQu)

496 I agree with many here (shocker).
Regardless of Frothy's intentions, his theological themed government pronouncements are out of touch with moderates and frankly frightening to most. He may be a decent guy ( I doubt it. He has way too many hangups) but he is acting like he is trying to blow any chance he has at the nomination.
His extreme positions are designed to make moderates better appreciate mittbot. mittbot cant be trusted. He will say and do anything to gain power. Even tbaggers know this and as a result distrust him.
Upthread says to run a ham sandwich. I agree. Take off 2012 and come back strong 2016.
My concern would be that the gop is known for moving way rightward when they lose national elections. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Obama2012 at February 21, 2012 02:14 PM (ArxIC)

497 500 comments in 25 minutes for this thread

Allahpundit must bow to the new King

Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 02:15 PM (Y+DPZ)

498 It's pretty heated, but understand this. The hostility against Sweaters is not some fear of theocracy. It's because the conservative alliance is one of social cons, moderates and libertarians. Take away any of those three and we're left with nothing.

Here's a candidate who said "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement." In other words, me.

I don't see why it's confusing to see why I wouldn't vote for a candidate who promises very clearly to fight against me.

I have nothing against my soc con brothers. We're all in this together. If one of the candidates expressed his dislike of religion, and said he would fight against religion inside the Republican party, I would view him as unelectable as well.

Us socially liberal/ fiscal conservative types may not be a big enough bloc to field our own candidate, but we are a big enough bloc to keep someone who promises to fight against us from being elected.

Sorry, but if I'm kicked out of the big tent, don't expect me to joining y'all in November.

Posted by: gbob at February 21, 2012 02:15 PM (BerYn)

499 "Santorum also has this huge perception problem in
that he either reminds voters of Principal Skinner, Rev Lovejoy, or in
his lighter moments, Ned Flanders. Kind of a combination of all three."


--Posted by: kbdabear at February 21, 2012 02:04 PM


Oh now, who's being a negative Nellie? Okely-dokely, it's off to the re-Neducation camp for you, my little heathen friend!

Posted by: TH at February 21, 2012 02:15 PM (LIZRu)

500
...I know I need to go invent a fucking time machine stat. This next 4 are gonna really suck really bad, no matter who wins.

This. Those trillions of dollars of debt are going to come due with interest. Then we're going to get Stewied:

http://bit.ly/tV5dKk

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 21, 2012 02:16 PM (1hM1d)

501 Also, for the record, any Christian that thinks they cannot drink beer because it might damage their standing before God - doesn't get Christianity, and frankly - has a very sad and small view of God as well.

Seriously - what kind of a small, petty, and childish god bases a man's goodness on his choice of drink?

My comment above unravels this, too.

Posted by: Adc at February 21, 2012 02:16 PM (VCCe8)

502 Posted by: Adc at February 21, 2012 02:16 PM (VCCe
I don't know a single mormon who drinks. But a lot of my Lutheran friends don't drink either.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 21, 2012 02:17 PM (oZfic)

503 @jeremy lin fan - Nothing wrong with that as a personal choice - but relative to core Christianity, it is nearly irrelevant.

Christ died for murders and prostitutes - but not those guys who enjoy a Northwest Microbrew pint with their mates during Sunday's game...

Pff.

Posted by: Adc at February 21, 2012 02:21 PM (VCCe8)

504 So if all Santorum's saying is that as POTUS he wants to have discussions on these issues, but not mandate anything, then STFU Rick. We don't have time for your lecturing. You can do all that after the U.S.A. becomes Rome 2.0. K?

Posted by: SFGoth at February 21, 2012 02:22 PM (dZ756)

505
Posted by: Adc at February 21, 2012 02:09 PM (VCCe
This plus infinity! Thanks for fleshing out these thoughts and relying them a lot better than I could.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta, only redeemed by Divine mercy) at February 21, 2012 02:22 PM (zzYEb)

506 The trap was laid by the WH.
Back a few weeks ago when the fake "religious percecution" uproar started based on Obamas exclusion of religious instutions from the new healthcare rules, Frothy's stock began to rise in earnest.
The trap is this. Frothy cant win in Nov, but he can cause mittbot to spend loads of money and time focusing on his gop counterparts, instead of focusing on Obama. Brilliant strategy, really.
Frothy can be depended on to spout theocratic nonsense. He has delivered. He is leading mittbot in national polls, although this situation wont last. mittbot wins the nomination because the establishment gopers say so.
Frothy makes mittbot tack further to the fringe. Yes, thats you baggers. The fringe. Moderates recoil in horror. Obama wins 4 more years.
Pretty smart, isnt it.

Posted by: Obama2012 at February 21, 2012 02:23 PM (ArxIC)

507 " Sorry, but if I'm kicked out of the big tent, don't expect me to joining y'all in November."

And expect the same from the much reviled so-cons, the angry tea party reformists who actually want government to shrink for once, and the pissy shrinking pool of useless (if not openly sabotaging) moderates. They'll happily ditch YOUR ass too if you win.

What you are hearing is bitter self righteous idiotic splitters beating their chests and making their demands and plotting to bolt if they aren't in charge when it is all over.

You are a hearing a lot of potential third party wanna-be's all threatening to burst from the chest of the bloated cancerous GOP.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 21, 2012 02:24 PM (a9mQu)

508 For real @Kratos. There are a lot of things that drive me nuts - but one thing I can't tolerate is seing the freedom from Grace mutilated by folks trying to establish their own righteousness. Especially when it happens under the banner of Christianity.

People's understanding of Christians is already effed up enough.

Christ bore the cross in your place - cause you cannot. It's that simple. Stop trying.

I imagine God can brew a pretty damn good stout too. Can't wait to try one with Him.

Posted by: Adc at February 21, 2012 02:31 PM (VCCe8)

509 You want to talk about evil on Earth, Rick, fine......how about ragging on the North Korean leadership that has starved millions of their people. Or talk about the evil that is Iran, that is actively plotting to kill Americans and practice genocide on an entire religion.

But the SoCon stances like 'bring back prayer in school', or 'Creationism is Science' pisses me off just as much as climate fraud or Gay History Month.

If I want to hear about Satan, I'll go to church you fuckwit.

And yet, I'll still vote for this turd sandwich over the JEF.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 21, 2012 02:33 PM (BhuDE)

510 @304 Sure - when you're cherry-picking large portions of Judeo-Christian morality.

That is the stupidest....Socrates taught ethics CENTURIES before Jesus, you idiot.

Do all Santorum supporters believe that Christianity has the monopoly on morality?

Posted by: Jason M at February 21, 2012 02:35 PM (R8jeE)

511 I think Santorum is going a bit overboard with the preaching--he's being soundbitten to death.
But there is something important inhis overall "meta" argument--by limiting the fight to economics alone, conservatives have ceded too much of the field to the left. The universities, the media and, to a large extent the overall culture, have been captured by the left in the march through the institutions. Thedeck has, to a large measure been stackedwith the left's premises--behold, the 20 something occutards grads who expect to get Free. Shit. NOW! That kind of voter is a structural problem, for a lack of a better term, and one not conducive to limited, responsible government under th Constitution.Ditto the grad who expects to be carried on Mom'n'Dad's insurance untiltheir late 20sunder ObamaCare.
Now, that's nothing any candidate, even Zombie Reagan, could solve in this cycle, and I suspect Santorum isn't the best candidate toframe such a debate. But if we'recontent to fight it out only on economic policies, each and every time, conservatism is going to die a slow death. Corporate America has shown they have no problem cronying up to a government happy to sluice them other people's money. Our transition to Repo Men Nation will be complete in pretty short order.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 21, 2012 02:36 PM (W54Uh)

512 My religion involves snorting cocaine off hookers, so I'm all over this shit.

Posted by: HoundOfDoom at February 21, 2012 02:37 PM (KhioZ)

513 "That is the stupidest....Socrates taught ethics CENTURIES before Jesus, you idiot.Do all Santorum supporters believe that Christianity has the monopoly on morality?"


Not sure that I qualify as a Santorum supporter (I am waffling back and forth), butI know for a fact Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) have happily acknowledged debts to Greek philosophy.

The problem is, your average atheist hasn't arrived at his moral code from inside a self-taught bubble, informed by tomes of Aristotle, Cicero, Confucius, etc. He's grown up in a society still at least somewhat formed by Judeo-Christian ethics, and is happy to retain the parts of those ethics which agree with his materialist worldview, along with whatever non-Judeo-Christian ethics he finds congenial. Consistent Aristotleans/Ciceronians are vanishingly rare on the ground. Thus, I've always founda refusal to admit thedebt to Christianitysomewhat perplexing.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 21, 2012 02:49 PM (W54Uh)

514 Ricky does realize that the guys who wrote that were DEISTS, not Christians, right ?

Pretty sure the idea of "following God's will" was not in their minds when they wrote the Declaration. Rick is dangerously close to guaranteeing I will not vote for him in ANY election.

Posted by: deadrody at February 21, 2012 02:49 PM (eOvu0)

515 Many of my born again friends find an amazing amount of liberty in the
idea of constraint. They decide not to participate in pre-marital sex,
which frees them from this perceived evil, and gives them the ability to
focus on other things.***MJ

That's not con[/]straint, it's restraint, which is wholly different in that it is not imposed from outside.

Posted by: Kerry at February 21, 2012 03:19 PM (a/VXa)

516 I hate this formatting crap.

Posted by: Kerry at February 21, 2012 03:20 PM (a/VXa)

517 514
Ricky does realize that the guys who wrote that were DEISTS, not Christians, right ?



Pretty sure the idea of "following God's will" was not in their
minds when they wrote the Declaration. Rick is dangerously close to
guaranteeing I will not vote for him in ANY election.

Posted by: deadrody at February 21, 2012 02:49 PM (eOvu0)***
You are quite wrong. Some were deists. Some were Catholics. Some were Episcopalians. Nearly all were Christian.

Posted by: Kerry at February 21, 2012 03:21 PM (a/VXa)

518 I think he means that human freedom is a lot more than superficial amusements and promiscuity and toys.

Of course, if you're paranoid about religion, just keep on banging the "Santorum is an idiot" drum -because we godbags hate it when people enjoy themselves.

/sarc

Posted by: disa at February 21, 2012 03:25 PM (INP/i)

519 Still not convinced why I shouldn't vote for Santorum. . .

Posted by: Dave C. at February 21, 2012 03:26 PM (rgXdB)

520 "So if all Santorum's saying is that as POTUS he wants to have discussions on these issues, but not mandate anything, then STFU Rick. We don't have time for your lecturing."

Really? Did you happen to see the NYT article over the weekend that reported that 53% of all births to mothers under 30 in America are to unwed mothers? Do you really think sexual morality has nothing to do with balancing the budget and having a functioning 21st Century economy? Do you really think conservatives should just ignorethe decades of research connecting single-parent homes to social pathologies (poor performance in school, drug and alcohol use, crime, etc.)?

Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 21, 2012 03:29 PM (qHCyt)

521 Guess he never heard of ol' Ben Franklin and his ladies or Jefferson and his regular squeeze, Sally Hemmings. This guy is so twisted.

Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at February 21, 2012 03:36 PM (0M2Nt)

522 Every night I say my prayers: Please, dear God, watch over my sperm and allow it only to be shot for purposes of procreation. In Rick Santorum's name, Amen.

Posted by: Moe Ron at February 21, 2012 03:38 PM (yWDpP)

523 Freedom is a gift weare harshly reminded of by the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Our bad choices being imperfect, pointing to the supposed "imperfection" of God, are reconciled by God Incarnate every time we consider the crucifixion of the Lamb of God. He died for our free will. Enjoy it.
Reminds me of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: "They're payin' for it; YOU eat it! Ready! Exercise!"
Church of Anchors hymn number 1:
Pastor: ♫ "He paid for it." ♫
Congregation: ♫ "Nomnomnomnomnom" ♫

Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at February 21, 2012 03:47 PM (gMONh)

524 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at February 21, 2012 03:57 PM (7W3wI)

525 Posted by: wooga at February 21, 2012 02:05 PM (vjyZP)
Well, as long as he didn'tSAY it say it, I guess we're cool. Cuz, as we all know, the Founding Fathers were writing self help books, notthe frame workforour Federal Republic.

Posted by: Whoopie Goldberg at February 21, 2012 03:58 PM (gMONh)

526 The distinction between liberty (Founding Fathers were for it) and license (Founding Fathers were against it) is a dead standard principle of American thought, natural law, the vast majority of philosophical systems, and any kind of civic virtues you mean to instill.

Didn't any of you guys ever read the Federalist Papers? De Tocqueville? George Washington? Anybody at all?

Posted by: Maureen at February 21, 2012 04:17 PM (fGqjI)

527 Orestes Brownson, in an 1864 argument against slavery:

"The American Idea, or the essential... principle of American civilization... is liberty, or the rights of man... not liberty without authority, or rights without duties; but liberty with authority, and authority with liberty. To deny either liberty or law is... to deny the American Idea, and to war against the vital principle of American civilization...

"Liberty with authority means that liberty is not license, but liberty regulated by law; and authority with liberty means that authority is not absolute, but must govern in accordance with liberty... without... violence to the natural rights of man...."

Posted by: Maureen at February 21, 2012 04:24 PM (fGqjI)

528 Ace, the spector of doom, it is unbearable.

Posted by: SarahW at February 21, 2012 04:31 PM (LYwCh)

529 It's interesting that the austere John Adams takes a more
permissive view on the license/liberty question, at least in
terms of freedom of speech and the press. Obviously he was pretty
strong on publishing criminals and keeping public order, so not so
much for license of action.

From a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 10, 1817:

"Can any organization of government secure public and private
liberty without a general or universal freedom, without license,
or licentiousness, of thinking, speaking, and writing? Have the
French such freedom? Will their religion, or policy, allow it?"

Posted by: Maureen at February 21, 2012 04:36 PM (fGqjI)

530 Maureen: I suspect most conservatives these days haven't read anything of the sort. And I think they believe liberty is an end and goal in its self rather than something that allows us to achieve better goals and ends. You're not free to be free, you're free to do something better.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 21, 2012 04:40 PM (r4wIV)

531 From a 1912 article in The Bookman, about the Goddess of Liberty statue on top of the US Capitol dome:

"On moonlight nights she is, indeed, as near a goddess as we earthly beings can imagine... Liberty seems to assure those who look up to her, as they come out from the heat of the debates, that political storms may rock the chambers in the wings of the Capitol, but on its highest pinnacle she stands firm; an emblem of the firm righteousness of Liberty, invulnerable against the onslaughts of License."

Posted by: Maureen at February 21, 2012 04:43 PM (fGqjI)

532 Well, it's more crucial for atheists and those unconcerned with religion to have a distinction between liberty and license, because they have to be their own moral authorities. Also, they don't anticipate an afterlife, one assumes, so they have to live the best possible life here and now. So you would think that they would stick very close to sober, austere, highly productive philosophies.

Posted by: Maureen at February 21, 2012 04:50 PM (fGqjI)

533
"My problem... continues to be that every successful Republican candidate speaks about the energy, vitality, courage, and creativity of freedom..."
We haven't heard much of that from any of the Republican candidates during the last couple of go-'rounds.
Might be somethin' to think about...instead of listening to them - andall of you - trash talk one another 24/7/365.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at February 21, 2012 04:50 PM (MpJXw)

534 407-- I agree. Third look at Newt.

Posted by: Burke at February 21, 2012 04:56 PM (9N3G1)

535 And then there's the Declaration of Independence. After explaining all the stuff that the Colonies have put up with and all the wrongs that have been done to them and all the UK's refusals of redress of their injuries, and after announcing that they have a right to become independent, they still add, "....appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...."

In other words, they announce that they are doing this for liberty (with morally righteous and correct intentions), but not for license (with wrong or careless intentions).

This is not to say that Santorum should not perhaps be careful about his wording of liberty vs license arguments, or his timing and choice of argument frameworks, or that perhaps he should talk more in positive than negative terms. But there's nothing wrong with his subject matter.

Posted by: Maureen at February 21, 2012 05:01 PM (fGqjI)

536 Not really. He's arguing against crass materialism, nihilism, and hedonism (he's trying to fight the culture war, a "slightly conservative" thing). It's an argument orthogonal to the Marxism/Freedom axis.

"However, let me posit the strange notion that perhaps a limited government, interested in maximizing citizen freedom by simultaneously limiting its ambit to only those functions it absolutely must perform, ought not to be in the business of insuring that each citizen make the right decision."

Where exactly did Santorum state that it was the government's business to ensure "that each citizen make the right decision?"

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at February 21, 2012 05:56 PM (Aq8WU)

537 Santorum's primary concern in the world is clearly where penises go and for what reason.

And it doesn't occur to him that the rest of us don't spend our days obsessing about that.

Posted by: DriveBy at February 21, 2012 06:44 PM (C9Vc8)

538 wooga, this isn't dick measuring. This is a basic divergence of first principles. If you have the credentials, fine. Apply them. Give the argument about what happiness consists in. That's what at issue here. "Pursuit of happiness" has a specific meaning. Define it and say why Santorum's wrong. And an understanding of Federalism doesn't factor into this.

Posted by: darii at February 21, 2012 09:08 PM (nTxXC)

539 The original documents read, "...that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property." Benjamin Franklin edited it to Happyness (it was later changed to Happiness). Happyness came in the third version of the Declaration of the Independence. He changed it because being the abolitionist he was, the editor that he was, and because he knew that slave owners, the world over, considered slaves property he did not want that conveyed and applied to the word Property.

Posted by: halodoc at February 21, 2012 09:21 PM (gLiPk)

540 I hope Santorum's people get in touch with you soon, Ace. That way he can express his opinion just exactly the way you like. Maybe Romney's people should do the same, too. Gingrich as well. Then, you could put your crown and do a self-righteous dance. Like your post about Rush and his bloviating, you spend some time looking into the mirror. I guess the difference between Rush and you is in the millions.

Posted by: Tom Seaver at February 21, 2012 09:33 PM (329Fa)

541 Santorum straight out admits to fighting the Tea Party and libertarian influence in the Republican Party. How is it hard to see that he's no friend of liberty? This isn't an isolated talk, and he's not interested in staying out of my life.

It's not complicated. He's frightening. And embarrassing. And incorrect.

We (our side) constantly get frustrated about the inferences others make about the Constitution. Such as separation of church and state, yeah it never appears. But neither do Rick's Responsibilities.

And they say "religious" not Christian. So when we are outnumbered along the line, everyone cool with someone else's religion dictating things? Sweet, great. Sounds good.

At least when our side finally bends me over and lubes me up I'll know it's time to turn in my passport with no regrets.

Posted by: Morgan at February 22, 2012 01:18 AM (hqlrn)

542 541 The vote for Ron Paul or straight ticket Constitutional Party and when The One wins another four years, pat yourself on the back for your ideological purity as you live outside the US. Don't let the doorknob hit you in the butt on the way out. Some of us will still be here, trying to sort this mess out.

Posted by: Tom Seaver at February 22, 2012 06:16 AM (329Fa)

543 I don't like Santorum. I find him a sanctimonious prig. However, I don't see how you get an anti-freedom agenda out of his statement. His point is that it is only through freedom (minimal government interference in our lives) can we pursue happiness. Further, this system of minimal government will only function because we a a good, liberty loving people (most f us really want to do the right thing). That sounds like Civics 101 to me. I doubt that any of the founders would disagree with the concept, though they would debate what constitutes a minimal level of government.

The Republican party must be the party of liberty, because the Democratic party is the party of equality. The Dems will legislate their morality every chance they get. To them, it is a moral good to take from the productive and give to life's losers. They will consistently increase the size of government, and its intrusiveness in our lives in order to level society. Republicans cannot compete in giving away stuff with a party whose reason for being is to give more and more stuff to those with less, even marginally less. It behooves the Pubbies to explain that more of this stuff will not make you happy, but it will enslave you to government.


Posted by: Former Republican at February 22, 2012 12:27 PM (mYl2D)

544
I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but it's pretty clear that no 18th century thinker would have (publically at least)endorsed the kind of hedonism that has become socially normal since the 1960s, even among so called "conservatives" who post pornography on their blogs.
And by the by, supporting liberty back then meant opposing central banking, not supporting fornication (a lifestyle that without government subsidy ends up pretty quickly in STI induced death).

Posted by: Gabriel M at February 23, 2012 05:05 AM (kQuHP)






Processing 0.08, elapsed 0.0984 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0274 seconds, 552 records returned.
Page size 321 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat